Romney has been endorsed by many pro-life activists and activist organizations.

Right off the bat, let it be known that Mitt Romney was my fourth choice among the GOP primary candidates.

Check my writing in this space from that time and you’ll see me talking up Gingrich, Perry, and Santorum, with barely a word in support of Romney. Since he won the nomination I’ve written a whole lot about how awful Barack Obama is but still barely anything in favor of Romney.

I think that establishes that this is far from blind loyalty speaking.

I am supporting Mitt Romney wholeheartedly in this election and I would like to share with you why I think you really ought to as well.

It comes down to this: we have a responsibility, as citizens, to be engaged in the public policy process to move public policy in the direction of the true and good. Our most direct and important means of doing this is voting. We are about to vote for President of the United States, the single most powerful secular political office in the world. There are two, and only two, candidates with any chance of winning the presidency next Tuesday. A vote for anyone apart from those two candidates will not affect public policy at. all. If one of the two candidates with a chance to win is morally acceptable then that candidate is eligible for your vote. But further, if one of the two candidates is morally reprehensible, then the other has a lower threshold to overcome to be deserving of your vote.

That applies to voting in general. We as Catholics have special considerations, teachings from our church on what is more or less important when casting a vote. There are five “non-negotiables:” abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, gay “marriage,” and human cloning. We cannot ever support policies that go against the Truth on these matters. Other areas that are negotiable—taxation, capital punishment, social welfare, waging war, etc.—allow for legitimate disagreement within a spectrum guided by Church teaching but ultimately up to the individual’s conscience. In this post I’m not talking about the negotiables.

On those non-negotiables, some seem to think we cannot vote for a candidate who is not darn-near pure as the driven snow. In his recent rather flippant post on such a consequential matter Mark Shea seems to be in this category.

After some undeserved and flimsy shots at Romney and Paul Ryan he concludes:

My point is this: If the five non-negotiables are this negotiable, something is wrong. My idea is that the five non-negotiables really are non-negotiable and that our selective negotiability has, over the past 30 years, cost the prolife movement a whole lot more than it has gained it anything. I think we should return to refusal to negotiate on non-negotiables–and re-evaluate our voting based, not on the negligible impact our vote has on election outcomes, but on the massive impact compromising on non-negotiables has had on the prolife movement.

First, his arguments against Romney in his preceding paragraph read more like sour grapes than anything else. Romney is endorsed by plenty of legitimate, respected pro-life groups and provides ample assurance that he will protect life, religious liberty, and marriage. I did not support Romney in the primary because I believed the other three would be better champions of these causes, but I am not afraid of a Romney presidency, and certainly not as afraid as of four more years of Barack Obama.

But second, based on that paragraph I quoted, which is more important to Shea, the “prolife movement,” or actually affecting public policy for the good over the next four years? He talks up the “prolife movement” at the expense of Romney and Ryan. He disparages the “negligible impact” of our individual sovereign vote. You could almost get the impression that Shea would be okay with four more years of Obama so long as the “prolife movement” gets stronger at some indeterminate point in the future. Ridiculous, and counterproductive for actually moving public policy in the direction of the good and true.

Shea may consider his version of the “prolife movement” more legit than others, but then what kind of movement is it if so many within the main bulk of the movement have already gone another direction?

Regardless of the present power or leadership of the “prolife movement,” public policy will be formed  both over the next four years, as well as in that as-yet unattainable epoch when the “prolife movement” is strong enough to satisfy Shea. It is imperative that we do what we can to affect public policy now, and in the future. Voting is our most immediate and important means of affecting public policy. We live in the now, and the next four years of public policy will likely roll by before that coalescing of the “prolife movement” Shea so desires, so we need to act to affect the now. Romney *is* the only candidate for president who both has a chance to win and is acceptable on the non-negotiables. Romney is not perfect—no one is, not even the three I preferred over him—but the alternative is Barack Obama. And this much is true: If you sit out today and withhold your vote “to teach a lesson,” or in pursuit of ideological purity you will achieve neither in this fallen world of constantly shifting political factions and fads. It just doesn’t happen.

Politics, the rough-and-tumble, back-and-forth competition of coalitions and compromise by which we get public policy, is about doing what you can, when you can, with the team you can put together at the moment, to advance the ball as far as you can, every opportunity you can. Politics is not about taking your ball and going home when you don’t hit the 90-yard touchdown strike on the first play from scrimmage. If you pursue that strategy you will lose, badly, and not be taken seriously by those who are actually trying to, and are content to, advance the ball by increments toward the goal. Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl, Jeff George did not. Don’t be Jeff George.

George Weigel, writing in National Review Online, essentially agrees:

Catholics who are still pondering their presidential vote will have heard, endlessly, that no political party fully embodies the social doctrine of the Catholic Church. That is certainly true. And it is also largely irrelevant. For the choice in 2012 is not between two parties that, in relative degrees, inadequately embody the Catholic vision of the free and virtuous society. The choice is between a party that inadequately embodies that vision and a party that holds that vision in contempt, as it has made clear in everything from the “HHS mandate” through the Charlotte convention votes against God to the [Lena Dunham] ad. Catholics who do not like their Church, or their vote, or themselves to be held in contempt could make the decisive difference in 2012 — not so much as a “Catholic vote” bloc, but as a community of American citizens determined to restore the decencies to public life and American culture.

(emphases mine)

On religious liberty, abortion, defense of marriage, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, defense of marriage, and human cloning, the question is not, “Is Mitt Romney perfectly, solidly Catholic on these positions?” but “Will Mitt Romney or Barack Obama present the better opportunity to advance public policy toward the true and good, and will either of them be truly deleterious to these causes?”

I make no categorical claim that a President Mitt Romney will have a perfect record on all of these areas—only fools make categorical claims about the future actions of politicians. But the nearest to a categorical claim any of us can make is that Barack Obama, if given the chance, would continue to be the most anti-life, anti-religious liberty president we have ever endured.

So in my view the choice is clear: If you value life and liberty in the way the Church admonishes us to you must vote for Mitt Romney.

Whether or not the poll is accurate—or at least more accurate than every other major poll which shows a virtual dead heat—is anyone’s guess. What’s at least as noteworthy is the actions of the respective campaigns themselves.

The Republicans sent Paul Ryan to campaign in Pittsburgh this past week, amid reports that Pennsylvania was shifting from solid Obama territory to toss-up. Other reports indicate that the Romney campaign has become so sure of victory in places like North Carolina and Indiana, that they are pulling resources out to shift into more contested states.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign, as noted by Phillip Klein of The Washington Examiner, is increasingly grasping at straws. Klein notes that emphasis the president is putting on Romney’s “binders of women”. The silliness of the topic aside, the fact President Obama is making this his current campaign thrust suggests he feels the need to reach out to independent female voters—and a Democratic campaign that’s secure would normally have that vote sewn up by this point.

None of this to suggest that the election is over. Prior to the first debate, Obama’s minions stupidly made that assumption when all available polling suggested a race that was very much competitive. Now the media spin and momentum is moving the other direction, but unless you think Gallup is the poll above all other polls—and I don’t—you have to assume this one is also a nail-biter.

The hope and change campaign of '08 has been replaced by the scorched earth strategy of '12.

But the actual actions of each campaign—as opposed to their talking points—tell us loud and clear that the game has changed. The Obama team hoped this would be re-run of the 2008 electoral map, when they won in red states like Indiana and North Carolina. That hope is by the boards.

In reality, it’s looking more like 2004 all over again, when the Bush-Kerry election essentially came down to a 2-of-3 battle in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. In that cycle, the Democrats won Pennsylvania, but it became more competitive than expected and likely cost the Kerry campaign resources that could have been used in the other two states, which tipped the election to Bush.

The comparison to 2004 is striking in several regards. In both cases you had an incumbent president whom voters—without completely turning on—were more than ready to replace. In each case you had a challenger from Massachusetts who gave off a patrician air.

In each case, the incumbent went on the attack early—in ’04 it was the hitting of Kerry with the Swiftboat vet ads in August. This time around it was nailing Romney on Bain Capital. Both times the challenger was put on the defensive. Both times the challenger rallied with a strong showing in the first debate that put the campaign back into a toss-up scenario.

Both times the campaign strategy of the incumbent boiled down to essentially acknowledging that the voters didn’t want them anymore, but that the alternative was worse. The fact Barack Obama adopted this strategy doesn’t make him any worse than any other politician whose tried the same thing.  But the Obama campaign’s latent appeal was always that he was different, somehow above it all.

Anyone not drinking the Kool-Aid served at the White House press office, Moveon.org or The Daily Kos has long known that the 2008 election map wouldn’t hold again. Now the actual actions of each campaign are at last telling us the same thing. And if Obama is just another politician, and decidedly acting like it, is that going to move any undecided voter in his direction in the next sixteen days?

Dan Flaherty is the author of Fulcrum, an Irish Catholic novel set in postwar Boston with a traditional Democratic mayoral campaign at its heart, and he is the editor-in-chief of TheSportsNotebook.com

Goya's "Saturn Eating His Son"? Or a candid shot of Mitt Romney "firing" a middle class laborer?

[Note: I spotted the Atlantic article in my Twitter feed with the note, "Thursday's Buzz?". If it is it'll be as much of a nothingburger as Big Bird and "Binderz!!1!!!1!1!"]

Okay, I’ll bite. Fr. Z-style.

The Atlantic has a semi-breathless article about a conference call Mitt Romney held with folks from the “über-conservative” (which, of course, means “practically oven-stoking Nazis”) National Federation of Independent Businesses. The NFIB is the largest advocacy group for the small businesses that form this nation’s economic backbone and employ the vast majority of its citizens. The article is full of suggestion of wrongdoing and innuendo, but it’s a bunch of hooey. It’s scaremongering by a base desperate to protect the Precious.

It can’t be selectively quoted. My inline comments are in red and a longer comment between a couple paragraphs.

Mitt Romney wants your vote. And if you’re a small business owner, he wants your employees’ votes as well [the nerve!] and insists that there’s nothing wrong with giving them a little guidance this election cycle. ["a little guidance"... only lacking the scare quotes.] On June 6, Romney led a conference call with support from the über-conservative [!] National Federation of Independent Business and — to cut to the chase [please do]– urged the bosses on the call to persuade their employees to vote for him in the upcoming election. [This is the substance of charge of wrongdoing, or at least wrongseeming, that they're trying to scare people with. Let's see how they do it.]

“I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections,” said Romney in a recording obtained by In These Times. “Nothing illegal about you talking to your employees about what you believe is best for the business, because I think that will figure into their election decision, their voting decision and of course doing that with your family and your kids as well.”

Let’s pause and look at what Mitt is quoted as having said there, because this is the evidence they bring against him to support their charge.

Businesses hire people to do jobs. The success of the company depends on the owners making good decisions and employees doing their jobs well, yes, but also on a constellation of other factors beyond the control of anyone in or around the enterprise. The price of energy, the regulatory regime that inspects and oversees the industry, payroll taxes that the employer has to pay, health insurance (most of which is usually paid by the employer), trade policies, inflation and the value of the dollar, so many other factors.

On many of these scores the record of the Obama years is not good. Energy prices are way up. Many industries—including energy production—have endured stifling regulation increases. Payroll taxes are set to soar pending some sort of unlikely deal between Congress and the President. Health care costs are way up, are going higher, and Obamacare will push a whole new set of headaches on small businesses and taxes on middle class Americans. Trade is only looking respectable because *everyone’s* economies are in the tank. Inflation is rising with the dollar being devalued by the printing of money in another round of quantitative easing.

All of these factors ought to scare small business owners and make them fear for the future of their company. Indeed, the 23 million Americans unemployed or underemployed can attest that the bad situation we faced in late 2008 has not gotten better these last four years, entrepreneurs are taking fewer risks, small businesses are not hiring as much.

If the owner of a business is concerned that he might have to reduce the size of his company or even shut down if a particular governmental policy continues his employees have a right to know. He, and they, have a vested interest in seeing to it that policies which unduly burden the company are avoided. That means voting accordingly. So sharing that information with employees is eminently reasonable.

They can, and will, vote in the solitude of the voting booth and in that space they can fill in whichever oval they choose; but they ought to be informed about the potential personal consequences of their vote. The business owner is in a position to inform them.

The implication of the first two paragraphs here is that what Mitt said amounts to inappropriate electioneering, which is hooey. Let’s resume…

Okay, Mitt. You’re right. It’s not technically illegal for employers to tell their employees how to vote. [See, told you it was hooey. The only law I know of that prohibits workplace electioneering is the Hatch Act, which prohibits workplace electioneering in the public sector---something Obama's team has had trouble observing.] That doesn’t mean that it’s ethical or understandable [?] or even acceptable to connect people’s livelihoods with their political beliefs. [Huh? People do this on their own everyday. Making voters make this connection is the bread and butter of challengers in electoral politics. "It's the economy, stupid" got Bill Clinton elected. Mitt advocating for real-world, voter-to-voter education seems no worse than "get in their face," and a damn site more rational.] There’s a fine line between an employer telling an employee, “Vote Romney!” and a boss telling a subordinate, “Vote Romney, or else!” At least, in the eyes of the inevitably subordinate employees there’s not. ["or else" can certainly mean "or else I'll fire you explicitly because you did not vote for Romney," which is what they seem to imply. However, it could also mean "or else this joker's policies are going to force me to reduce the size of this business, jeopardizing your job, and I'd really rather not face that; I imagine you'd rather not as well." Considering the employer really has no way of knowing which way the voter actually voted I'm inclined to think the latter interpretation is at least as plausible as the former.]

This hierarchical method of political persuasion is turning into a bit of a trend for Republicans this year [Just this year? The Dems, through their union subsidiaries, have made it an artform through the decades]. Just a couple of days ago, we learned that the Koch Brothers sent their employees a list of people to vote for, or else they could “suffer the consequences.” [True, but the full sentence was, "[if Obama is reelected] then many of our more than 50,000 U.S. employees and contractors may suffer the consequences, including higher gasoline prices, runaway inflation, and other ills.” Not a single mention of employment or the size of the company to be found. Hardly the ominous “you’ll be fired” line implied by their editing.] That was just a few days after the chief executive of a software company told his employees that he didn’t “want to hear any complaints regarding the fallout that will most likely come” if they voted Obama back into office. [Again, interestingly edited, but easily interpreted on its face as non-ominous.] And a few days before that the CEO of Westgate Resorts and the owner of the largest house in America similarly said that he would “have no choice but to reduce the size of this company” if Obama won. “Whose policies will endanger your job?” he asked his employees. [Straightforward, not a threat, a matter-of-fact statement. Since that CEO won't be in the voting booth with any of his employees each employee's vote is still his to do with as he sees fit.]

Mitt Romney’s campaign wouldn’t respond to questions about his proposition from that June conference call. [You don't say...] We don’t blame them, either. After all, this is the guy that very publicly said he likes being able to fire people [An unfortunate phrasing, to be sure, but not a bad thing. It means you are able to improve the enterprise if someone is persistently underperforming and dragging productivity down. (More can be said here about firing and the reasons for it but I'll leave it at that for now.) If you are incapable of firing anyone you end up with something as inefficient, bloated, and calcified as the U.S. government.] Combined with the let-me-tell-you-whom-to-vote for proposition, this has to scare the crap out of your everyday middle class American wage earner. [I'm one. And nope.] Especially the women. [A hoped-for conclusion, considering this.] The binders full of women. [ZING!]

But I’ll say this to their credit: they did correctly use “whom” in the headline.

Oddly enough, polls continue to show that young adults support President Obama, though not as enthusiastically as they did in 2008. The Obama campaign knows this and has tried to bolster its credibility among young voters by promising them affordable student loans and highlighting the fact that they can stay on their parent’s insurance until they turn 26. But those efforts may be in vain. As recently as August, a CNN poll indicated that support for the president among 18-29 year-olds was down to 56%, a full 10 points less than the 66% he won in 2008.

Advanced statistics suggest it’s unlikely the youth vote will have the same impact it did in 2008, but that doesn’t mean it’s not an important voting bloc. In a race bound to be decided by the slimmest of margins, each and every vote counts. And to that end, the Romney campaign released the following image. It’s a powerful reminder that President Obama’s policies haven’t helped young adults as effectively as he said they would.

Winning the next debate will be a challenge for the governor, however. The format – a town hall style discussion – favors the typically affable Barack Obama.

But which Barack Obama will show up? Will it be the unfocused, altitude affected candidate we saw fold under pressure last week? Or will it be the ideological firebrand who, just one day after his debate loss, vigorously accused Governor Romney of lying to the American people.

My bet is on the latter, the real Barack Obama – the man who cut his political teeth on the rough and tumble streets of Chicago.

The president needs to be careful in choosing his arguments, though. He is vulnerable on multiple fronts, especially on the issue of “economic patriotism,” a sly term he coined in a speech in Virginia on September 27th.

What exactly is economic patriotism? And what does the president mean when he says it? After all, it reeks of Orwellian doublespeak.

According to the president, economic patriotism is an economic policy “rooted in the belief that growing our economy begins with a strong and thriving middle class.”

Aesthetically, that sounds great. Who wouldn’t support an economic policy built around a strong and thriving middle class? The problem is that we’ve been hearing this type of language since 2008. And despite the president’s policies, the middle class has not gotten stronger. Even Joe Biden, who recently acknowledged that the middle class has been “buried for the past 4 years,” knows that.

If the president wants to talk about economic patriotism, he best tread lightly. Because a patriot, as he himself has done, would never accuse a sitting president of being unpatriotic for adding trillions to the national debt and then go and do the exact same thing. Nor would a patriot tell small business owners they didn’t build their business. Furthermore, a patriot would never condescendingly mock people who support the 2nd Amendment and have a strong faith in God.

A patriot is someone who vows to cut the deficit in half, and then proceeds to do so. A patriot is someone whose policies actually help the middle class, as opposed to increasing their dependence on the government dole. A patriot is someone who sees the national debt as a moral issue. And perhaps most importantly, a patriot is someone who adheres to the Constitution, particularly the section that says religious organizations should be free to fulfill their earthly mission without being coerced by the federal government.

Obama in Columbus: “You give a tax break to millionaires, what’s he going to do with it? You can only buy so many yachts.”

— Alan Johnson (@ohioaj) September 17, 2012

It was supposed to be a laugh line, I assume. A real gotcha. Because Mitt Romney is rich and another tax break would mean he would have more disposable income, with which he would clearly do nothing productive but would just buy another yacht. The nerve.

It’s basic populist, class warfare rhetoric. It’s also a symptom of why this disaster of a president’s policies have caused an economic crisis to turn into a societal and economic malaise. It’s also sloppy.

For starters, I wonder how all those people who manufacture yachts and yacht accessories, or the raw materials used in yacht production, would feel about their livelihoods being slighted.

Yachts don’t descend from Mount Olympus, whole and entire, clad in platinum and birds eye maple, landing gently in some small New England harbor where they wait, sleek and pretentious, until T. Coddington van Voorhees VII comes by in one of his chauffeured Bentleys that runs on the tender tears of baby seals to snap up another one. To use for firewood.

Someone builds those yachts. In fact, a whole lot of someones build those yachts in New Jersey, Wisconsin, Florida, Tennessee, California, New York, Washington state, North Carolina, South Carolina, and other states. They get paid to build them. Chances are good that the majority of those who labor to build them cannot afford to buy them. So if more are purchased that means more people are doing more work to build them. If more are purchased, more people are hired and paid money to build them, which means more people have money to live their lives.

Stimulus!

Second, any president who, in the midst of an economic crisis, would chuck around $6.5 billion of taxpayer money down money sinkholes like Solyndra, Ener1, and Abound, and push stinkers like the Chevy Volt with massive taxpayer-funded subsidies has no right to lecture anyone else on what is an appropriate thing to do with their own money.

Third, millionaires like Mitt Romney didn’t *become* millionaires by buying another yacht. Self-made millionaires make their money by working hard, taking risks with their own money, and investing their own money wisely in companies that prosper. In the process healthy companies grow and hire more people. Unhealthy companies close, thus freeing up resources—including laborers—to contribute to the economy in a company that will progress and grow.

So, if you give tax cuts to those who pay lots of money in taxes they then have more of the money they earned to use either to buy stuff, which spurs economic activity, to directly invest in companies, which spurs economic activity, or to donate to worthy philanthropic endeavors, which spurs some economic activity and good deeds.

But don’t just take my word for it, check out what Obama’s former chief economist said about tax cuts and tax increases.

Behold: John Kerry's foreign-built $7 million sailing yacht "Isabel."

(Side note: anyone else remember the time John Kerry—a millionaire who did not earn his millions but married into them—was caught docking his brand new yacht—a 76-foot, seven million dollar, foreign made behemoth, I might add—in Newport, Rhode Island, rather than Massachusetts to avoid paying Massachusetts taxes on his luxury liner? Fun times.)

So if the intention is to spur economic activity then even by the standard set in Obama’s own demagoguery, a tax cut for millionaires would not be a bad thing. Whether he millionaire buys another yacht or invests in a startup or even, perhaps, a company with a new energy saving technology (read: green energy)—but one that is *worth* investing in on the business merits—the tax cut for the millionaire seems like a good idea.

The CatholicVote.org Research team has pored through the public statements and positions of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on issues which matter to Catholics.

We believe the choice is clear: Catholics should vote for Mitt Romney for President.

We have life, marriage and religious liberty at the top of the list, because these issues are foundational. And on life, marriage and religious liberty, Mitt Romney is immeasurably better than Barack Obama.

We have also included other areas of concern to Catholic voters, including fiscal responsibility, education and health care. On these issues, we also think Mitt Romney comes out on top. Unlike abortion which involves an intrinsic evil which can never be justified, Catholics are free to disagree on which approach is best on education, health care and education.

Obama on life:

• Supports Roe v. Wade and affirms, “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose.” (Source: White House Press Statement)
• As part of his healthcare legislation, almost every health insurance plan will be required to cover sterilizations and contraception–including birth control pills that can cause abortions–with no co-pay. (Source: US Department Health & Human Services)
• Overturned a law that prevented the government from giving aid to international family planning groups.  Now our government can pay for people’s contraception (including abortifacients) overseas as well. (Source: White House Executive Order)
• His campaign boasts that he “stood up to Republicans trying to roll back a woman’s right to choose and defund Planned Parenthood.”  He praises Planned Parenthood and refuses to cut government funding ($487 million in 2012) for the organization.  Planned Parenthood performs on average 900 abortions per day. (Source: Huffington Post)
• In the Senate, he opposed a pro-life bill designed to prevent partial-birth abortions. (Source: IL General Assembly)
• Ended a ban on using taxpayer money to fund embryonic stem cell research, which kills human embryos. (Source: White House Executive Order)
• Eliminated conscience protections for medical workers who morally object to dispensing the morning-after pill (which is designed to destroy embryos).  Recipients of federal money can now discriminate against these workers.(Source: Catholic News Agency)
• Promises to veto legislation that would prevent taxpayer funding of abortion.(Source: LifeNews.com)
• Obama is endorsed by pro-choice groups NARAL and Planned Parenthood.  Planned Parenthood spent $1.4 million on an ad campaign for Obama. (Source: Planned Parenthood)

Romney on life:

• Believes abortions should be limited to only cases of rape or incest or to save the mother’s life. (Source: CBS News)
• Supports overturning Roe v. Wade and promises to appoint Supreme Court Justices who are committed to fair interpretation of the Constitution (Source: Life News)
• Supports the Hyde Amendment, which bars using federal tax revenue to pay for abortions (Source: Mitt Romney)
• Promises to support efforts to eliminate federal funding for Planned Parenthood (Source: Huffington Post)
• Promises to support the Mexico City Policy, which will bar NGOs that receive federal funding from promoting or performing abortions as a method of family planning in other countries. (Source: Mitt Romney)
• Promises to advocate for and support legislation that will make it illegal to destroy unborn children who are developmentally capable of feeling pain (Source: Life News)
• He says, “If I have the opportunity to serve as our nation’s next president, I commit to doing everything in my power to cultivate, promote, and support a culture of life in America.” (Source: Mitt Romney)
• As governor of Massachusetts, he vetoed a bill that would have allowed girls of any age to obtain emergency contraceptive pills (which are designed to destroy embryos) without parental consent (Source: Mitt Romney)
• As governor of Massachusetts, he opposed legislation that would allow the creation of human embryos for the purpose of stem cell research, which would result directly in the destruction of those embryos (Source: Romney at NRLC)

Obama on marriage:

• Supports homosexual “marriage” (Source: CNN Politics)
• Believes the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) should be repealed (Source: The Atlantic – Wire)
• Decided with the Justice Department that they would not defend DOMA in new cases (Source: Dept. of Justice – Press Release 2/23/11)
• Extended to same-sex partners of federal employees many of the benefits that spouses of federal employees enjoy and supports legislation that would grant same-sex partners of federal employees exactly the same benefits as spouses (Source: Politico & OPM Rule)
• Required any hospital receiving federal funds to allow visitation rights for same-sex partners (Source: Washington Post)
• Supports the Respect for Marriage Act, which requires all states to recognize same-sex “marriages” performed in other states, which would effectively make homosexual “marriage” legal–even as he emphasizes his belief that the question of same-sex “marriage” should be decided by individual states. (Source: Whitehouse.gov – Blog & “Respect Marriage Act”)

Romney on marriage:

• Romney’s campaign page says, “Marriage is more than a personally rewarding social custom. It is also critical for the well-being of a civilization. That is why it is so important to preserve traditional marriage – the joining together of one man and one woman.” (Source: MittRomney.com)
• Opposes civil unions that resemble marriage (Source: USA Today)
• Favors some domestic partnership benefits but believes that states should decide which of these benefits are appropriate. (Source: Real Clear Politics – with Video)
• Promises to appoint an Attorney General who will defend DOMA (Source: MittRomney.com)
• Promises to champion a new amendment to the Constitution that will define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. (Source: National Review Online & MittRomney.com)

Obama on religious liberty:

• Obama’s Affordable Care Act will require most employers to purchase insurance that covers abortions, sterilizations, and contraception with no co-pay, even though many of those employers–including Catholic schools, hospitals, and dioceses as well as individual business owners and people of many different faiths–object to paying for such insurance plans on religious grounds. (Source: The Weekly Standard)
• Obama’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claimed the power to compel a church to rehire a former employee to a teaching position.  The case (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC) went to the Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously in favor of the church.  The decision reads, “authority to select and control who will minister to the faithful is the church’s alone.” (Source: Wall Street Journal Online)
• Obama’s HHS would not renew funding to the Migration and Refugee Services (MRS), which provides services to refugees, migrating children, and human trafficking victims, because MRS, a Catholic organization, refused to provide or refer for abortions or contraception. (Source: National Catholic Register)

Romney on religious liberty

• Romney writes, “If I am elected President, on day one of my administration I will issue an executive order directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue a waiver from its requirements to all 50 states.”  This would allow states to not force employers to purchase insurance that fully covers abortions, contraception, and sterilization, limiting the effects of Obama’s healthcare legislation while he works to repeal it entirely. (Source: Washington Examiner – OpEd)
• Supported the Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC decision that affirmed the right of churches to make their own hiring decisions. (Source: ABC News)
• Defended the right of Catholic Charities of Boston to decide on its own whether it would allow same-sex couples to adopt children in its care. (Source: Fox News)

Obama on fiscal responsibility:

• Added more to the national debt than the previous 43 presidents combined (Source: CNS News)
• Almost doubled the national debt over his term as President (Source: CBS News)
• Added $1 trillion to the deficit each year as President (Source: Real Clear Politics)
• Spent 25% of GDP, the highest spending-to-GDP ratio since World War II (Source: Forbes)

Romney on fiscal responsibility:

• Romney’s goal is to reduce federal spending to 20% of GDP by the end of his first term (Source: Mitt Romney)
• Promises to send a bill to Congress that will cut non-security discretionary spending by 5% (Source: Mitt Romney)
• Promises to repeal the Affordable Care Act, privatize Amtrak, reduce subsidies to organizations that have access to other funding sources or that offer duplicate services, eliminate federal funding of groups that perform abortions, and reduce foreign aid for a total projected savings of $97.6 billion. (Source: Townhall)
• Wants to cap Medicaid spending and allow it to grow at the inflation rate + 1% per year (Source: Economist)
• Plans to reliquish more power to the states, resulting in federal savings (Source: Mitt Romney)
• Plans to work to repeal the the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires the government to pay its employees above-market wages (Source: Mitt Romney)
• As governor of Massachusetts, Romney closed a $3 billion budget gap without raising taxes and left $2 billion in a rainy-day fund (Source: Mitt Romney)

Obama on education:

• Increased federal funding for scholarships and financial aid (Source: Whitehouse.gov)
• Spent $100 billion of the $831 billion stimulus on education-related issues, including teacher salaries (Source: Eductopia.org)
• Issued waivers from the No Child Left Behind Act to 26 states after Congress would not repeal the law, freeing the states from the obligation to ensure that students are proficient in math and reading by 2014 (Source: NY Times)
• Implemented Race to the Top, a program that rewards schools with money for conforming to a set of federal standards (Source: Wall Street Journal Online)
• Refused to continue funding the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, which grants public-school students in DC vouchers for private-school tuition (Source: National Review)

Romney on education:

• In the third year of his term as governor, Massachusetts 4th graders and 8th graders ranked first in the nation in math and reading (Source: Taunton Daily Gazette)
• As governor, he vetoed a bill that would have put a moratorium on adding charter schools in the state. (Source: MittRomney.com)
• Created the “John and Abigail Adams Scholarship” to reward high-performing high school students with college scholarships to any state institution.  (Source: MittRomney.com)
• Supports empowering states to determine education policy, rewarding teachers based on student achievement, and school choice for students (Source: NY Times)

Obama on health care:

• Raised taxes by $500 billion to pay for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which the CBO estimates will cost $1.5 trillion over the next decade. (Source: Congressional Budget Office)
• The ACA compels insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions. (Source: New York Times)
• The ACA, along with the HHS mandate, requires most employers to purchase insurance that covers abortions, sterilizations, and contraception with no co-pay, even though many of those employers–including Catholic schools, hospitals, and dioceses as well as individual business owners and people of many different faiths–object to paying for such insurance plans on moral grounds. (Source: USCCB)
• The ACA requires every individual to purchase health insurance, whether or not they need or want it. (Source: The Huffington Post)
• The ACA makes it illegal for a health insurance company to spend more than an arbitrary amount on employee salaries, administrative costs, and marketing. (Source: PennLive.com)

Romney on health care:

• Promises to repeal the Affordable Care Act as soon as possible, beginning with the stopgap of offering waivers to all 50 states while he works on reversing the law entirely. (Source: Mitt Romney)
• Envisions the federal government’s primary role in health care as creating a level playing field for competition with the goal of driving down premiums. (Source: Mitt Romney)
• Plans to cap the amount that a person can win in court for suing a doctor. (Source: Christian Science Monitor)
• Promises to prevent discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage. (Source: Mitt Romney)
• Will end tax disincentives that make it relatively more expensive for individuals to purchase health insurance apart from their employers, increasing real consumer choice. (Source: New York Times)
• Will allow individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines, increasing competition. (Source: National Public Radio)

PAID FOR BY CATHOLICVOTE.ORG CANDIDATE FUND. NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE’S COMMITTEE.

Could we please? Find me one Republican proposal or popular movement that wants to dismantle a government role in building the infrastructure, “gut education”, as the president shamefully charged, leave the elderly to starve or in some way deny the reality that there are social obligations that come with living in civil society.

For the record, differences in what level of spending is appropriate on a certain program, or whether a program should be administered via direct spending or a voucher are examples of differences of opinion on how to achieve a common goal. They are hardly examples of conflicting values on the very construction of civilization itself.

The manipulation of the crowds was the principle product of both political conventions, including this past week in Charlotte.

One of the dangerous things about politics today is that large numbers in each party really seem to have to drank the Kool-Aid that was served up in Tampa and Charlotte this last week. Politicians might know they’re dispensing exaggerations, but the crowds they manipulate really seem to have bought into the idea that Republicans want to put everyone completely on their own and Democrats want to shut down the very notion of entrepreneurship.

I’d like to see someone run a poll that put this proposition in front of the average voter—

“No one can replace the role of the individual in taking risks, starting an enterprise, putting the work in and taking on the continuing risks of expansion. No one can deny the importance of the government in providing the framework of an infrastructure, strong legal system, strong police presence and helping to build an educated workforce from which to hire.”

I ‘d set the Over/Under on public agreement with this benign proposition at about 90 percent, with no distinctions found in party affiliation.

Why then, all the emotion? Political leaders use the debate over which portion of that proposition to emphasize to create division—all the better with which to raise money, secure votes and whip up the mob. Grass-roots activists adopt an approach of never reading anything the other side says, always assuming the worst—all  the better to make themselves feel superior.

None of this is to suggest the policy differences aren’t real and or that they shouldn’t be voted on—indeed, that is the whole point of an election. Furthermore, there are fundamental moral questions at stake that this debate doesn’t cover. But there’s no reason to twist an opponent’s view for the purpose of demonization. Nor is “everybody else does it” constitute a defense. The Charlatans of Charlotte failed in their opportunity to rise above the Truth-Twisting of Tampa.

an Flaherty is the author of Fulcrum, an Irish Catholic novel set in postwar Boston with a traditional Democratic mayoral campaign at its heart, and he is the editor-in-chief of TheSportsNotebook.com.

Which of these scenes gives one the sense that the person making the entrance is comfortable in who he is, and is substantive enough not to need theatrics to “embiggen” him?

On the other hand, which screams “I’m compensating!” for a thin resume, a desperate need for adulation and adoration, and a messiah complex?

The candidates:

Mitt Romney’s entrance into the Tampa Bay Times Forum (seating capacity for hockey games is 19,500), where the rest of the GOP convention had been held (he’s the one to the left of the “UTAH” sign, shaking hands)?

Trent Nelson | The Salt Lake Tribune Mitt Romney shakes hands as he makes his entrance at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida, Thursday, August 30, 2012.

Or then-candidate Barack Obama’s into Invesco Field* in 2008 (capacity 76,125 for football), a separate and much larger venue than the one in which the rest of the Democrat convention had been held?

Photo by Max Whittaker/Getty Images

Not a petty observation. Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was more of a rock star tour than anything else. He moved from overwhelming venue to ostentatious backdrop, surrounded by adoring fans who could not articulate a single actual thing the man had ever done, proposed, supported, opposed, or accomplished. But, daggonit, he inspired so much HOPE! and CHANGE!

He’s going to try to do it again, but the magic is gone. He’s got a record that even the hacks at MSNBC cannot mask, no matter how many times Chris Mathews accuses someone of racism.

—————

*In a delicious bit of irony, Invesco Field in Denver is now called Sports Authority Field. So the site of Barack Obama’s Greek temple is now named after one of the companies that Mitt Romney helped build.

Raymond Arroyo: The Catholic community in this country and people across the faith spectrum were outraged by President Obama’s HHS Mandate – requiring abortifacients and contraceptives to be made available to employees. It set off protests by the Catholic bishops and individual people of faith. What will do as president about that HHS Mandate?

Governor Romney: Well, first of all I’ll continue to meet with to Cardinal [Timothy] Dolan [of New York and President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops] – who by the way is going to offer the benediction on the last evening of the Republican Convention after my acceptance speak. So I am making it very clear that the interest of religious freedom is something I support wholeheartedly and will work with him and with others to assure that each piece of legislation that we consider is thought also in terms of its impact on religious freedom and tolerance. This is a nation where our first freedom is the right to worship God as we choose, and any effort on the part of the federal government to intrude on religious liberty and to reject tolerance in favor of a government mandate is a violation of that first freedom.

Here’s the whole interview: