Romney’s Good Enough

So it looks like it’s Romney. Now what?

Now we do our best to help him defeat Obama, for various reasons.

One oft-overlooked reason is that there’s a very good chance of the Republicans taking over the Senate, and that’s quite important. The voters who’ll vote for Republican senators sometimes won’t show up at the polls unless they plan to vote for President as well. If you can get them out to vote for Romney, you can thereby prevent leftists from controlling either house of Congress. Not a bad deal.

But the obvious reason to vote for Romney is this: Romney is preferable to Obama.

You may want to dispute that, but you shouldn’t. I know certain other candidates have been pegging Romney as “Obama lite.” Such exaggeration is fair game in the primaries – although even there it’s a bit dishonest, and dishonesty is a sin – but the primaries are basically over, now.

Romney was never the candidate we would hope for. But he is better than Obama. Perhaps a lot better, perhaps not; but certainly a little better. Case in point: even Romney would not have pulled this HHS mandate crap. Whereas Obama did pull this HHS mandate crap. Who’da thunk we’d need to be fighting for religious liberty in the U.S.A. without some post-apocalyptic Hunger Games scenario happening first? Yet here we are.

And then there is the PPACA (“ObamaCare”). If this act should happen to not be tossed out by the Supreme Court – which would be outrageous, but you never know – it will have firmly established by precedent the government’s power both to enact the HHS mandate and to do pretty much anything else. Folks, if that precedent is set, the future slide towards totalitarian nanny-statism is guaranteed, and in the end the HHS mandate will be one of our lesser concerns.

Yes, I realize that Romney enacted a similar health plan at the state level in Massachusetts, where it is constitutional, and it worked out badly. But Obama championed it at the national level, where it is not constitutional, after it had already been shown to be a bad idea at the state level. I think that makes a difference. Not as much difference as I’d like – I’d have preferred that Romney had the wisdom or the instincts to have known better than to try it at the state level – but the chastened and law-respecting Romney is still preferable to the seemingly un-chastenable Obama who considers constitutionally limited government to be an antiquated notion.

And then there is the pro-life issue. Does the Mexico City Policy ring a bell? Romney would have been on the right side of that one. And what about the fact that with two more pro-lifers on the court we could plausibly have achieved a reversal of Roe (putting aside moral issues, Roe was never even a sound piece of legal reasoning, for those who care about such things) sometime in the next few years?

But now, with the relatively youthful Sotomayor and Kagan firmly ensconced, it’ll be more like 20-30 years before the next opportunity is likely to arise. Which means, conservatively, that there are several million more murdered children in our future. Why? Because a lot of Catholics decided that voting for That Articulate Young Man With The Politically Correct Complexion suited their self-image better than voting for irritable war hero Crotchety McGrumps.

Well, what’s done is done. But let’s focus on the here-and-now and minimize the damage. Catholics, it’s time to vote for that Mormon guy. Conservatives, it’s time to vote for that blue-stater. Average-looking people, it’s time to vote for the Ken Doll. Folks with darker complexions, it’s time to vote for just about the whitest-looking white man in the race. Working stiffs, it’s time to vote for Richie Rich. We’re all grown-ups, here: Let’s suck it up and overcome our pettiness for the greater good.

So Romney’s a flip-flopper? Well y’know, sometimes it’s about the lesser evil. To offer an extreme example: Given the choice between a serial killer who’s full-bore gung-ho about serial killing, and one who’s a little conflicted and less-than-entirely dedicated to his work, give me the waffler. Obama’s a full-bore gung-ho post-American leftist class warrior with a penchant for undermining the Constitution. Romney, even if he’s a bit left of where you wish he was, still isn’t all that.

So Romney’s annoyingly well-to-do? Well, poor folk can’t  drop work to send their whole workforce searching for a friend’s missing daughter. And since when do non-millionaires run for president anyhow? (And have a snowball’s chance, I mean. The Naked Cowboy doesn’t count.)

So Romney’s a member of that funky religion with a past track-record of doctrinally supporting bigamy and racism and various faux-historical groaners, and the penchant for borrowing Christian theological terms but meaning wildly different things by them? Yes, I know. Even that very nice-sounding choir doesn’t quite make up for it, does it? But look, it’s hardly as if Catholics on Capitol Hill are in the habit of setting a good example of  sound doctrine and  holy lives, is it? Or integrity. Or even coherent thought, some of them. So you take what you can get, and you specialize: Give me Jesus for my good example, the Magisterium for my sound doctrine, and for defeating a really bad incumbent president, give me a well- funded and telegenic presidential candidate.

So Romney’s kinda plastic-looking? Well, as Mr. McGuire told The Graduate: “I want to say just one word to you…just one word.”

It is truly the (election) season of our discontent: We wish we could play Mr. Potato-Head with the soon-to-be nominee. We wish we could take out Romney’s negatives and replace them with various things: Gingrich’s debating skills and fearlessness, Herman Cain’s infectious happy-warrior attitude, Santorum’s pro-life credentials, and the more reasonable four-fifths of Ron Paul’s small-government principles. (Aside: Don’t you wish you could just fit Ron Paul with a  restraining bolt? Leave him more or less the same but without the penchant for walking off ideological cliffs or befriending kooks? But I digress.)

This Mr. Potato-Head thing would be great for the GOP slate of candidates. We could mix-and-match pieces and parts until all that was left of the original was Romney’s hair, smile, bankbook, and lack of a divorce. I’d be down with that, if it were medically possible.

But it isn’t. I’m sorry, gentlemen, but the GOP nominee isn’t Steve Austin. We can’t rebuild him. We don’t have the technology. We wish we could assemble our own Bionic Frankencandidate who suited our every liking except for the neck-bolts and the 70’s television sound-effects, but it isn’t going to happen.

Don’t let the imaginary best get in the way of a realizable good. Okay, a realizable not-that-bad. Okay, a realizable improvement on Obama.

Eyes on the prize, people. Eyes on the prize.

Cord Hamrick


Cord Hamrick is a husband and father of three, raised an evangelical Christian in Southern Baptist churches. After years of lurking, questioning, and eventually opining in the Catholic blogosphere, he was received into the Catholic Church at Easter Vigil, 2010. Cord is a sometime church musician, former praise-and-worship bandleader, frequent songwriter and arranger, occasional guitar teacher, and -- because one really must somehow pay the bills -- a developer of web-based software applications. He lives in the suburbs of Atlanta, Georgia, with his wife and three kids.

  • StellaMaris

    I’m feeling so discouraged and disappointed this morning.  Thanks for saying, ‘It’s not that bad’ when it feels so bad.  I’m going to try to believe you, but hope is just so hard to dredge up at the moment.

    • Cord_Hamrick

      I quite understand how you feel, Stella. I wrestle with the same feelings.

      But remember: This is not our homeland. This is “our” country only in the sense of stewardship: We have a temporary, limited-authority, limited-influence mission to influence this ephemeral thing called the United States of America for the better. But we will outlive it, and after it has sunk into the mists of time, we, and our our true homeland, will still be around by the grace of God.

      Your next-door neighbor, and the poor family you help through St.
      Vincent de Paul can-drives, and that relative who wrestles with issues
      of faith and doubt, are permanent because God made them that way; the United States isn’t because we created that. You and I could politically strategize some way to keep the U.S.A. functioning for another 10 years, and that’d be all well and good, but if we did so by neglecting some personal, individual duty to these human beings, or at the expense of our own soul, we would only have traded away a permanent glory in order to gain a temporary benefit. Not really a bargain!

      So, don’t despair or be discouraged. (Trust me: I’m writing this as much to myself as to you!) We work hard at our mission of influencing this place for the better, as well we should: It’s stewardship, and Our Lord doesn’t approve of slacking off once he’s assigned us to a task. But we store up our treasure elsewhere, y’know? Where “moth and rust do not destroy.” We can’t become neglectful, but we do have to keep it in proportion.

  • Lenpacek

    This is exactly where we all need to be. I once read a story about an elderlyerson who earned their degree at 70. She told the reporter that what motivated her to choose to get her degree much later than she would have liked, was the question “Would you rather be 70 with a degree or without a degree?”. So I ask, would you rather spend the next 4 years with Obama or without him?

    • Tiredofthechickenlittles

      With him.

      • Cord_Hamrick

        With? Really?

        Why on earth?

        I mean, I’m curious.

        Bad for the economy, bad for the middle class, bad for jobs, bad for world stability, bad for medical care in the U.S. (which needed reform, but of exactly the opposite variety that Obama championed), bad for America’s allies around the world, bad for the timbre of civil discourse in the country, bad for the unborn, bad for freedom, bad even for racial unity in America where his election has paradoxically sown discord not among whites, more of whom voted for him because of his complexion than voted against him, but among blacks, many of whom insist that any opposition to his policies is racially motivated, in defiance of both the realities of the man’s record and the post-racial nature of the American political mainstream.

        And there is the fact of government debt. People pooh-pooh this because both sides are guilty of deficit spending, forgetting the issue of proportion. Compared to Obama and the Democrats in the last few years, the deficit spending of mixed-party and even solidly GOP governments in the past has been paltry.

        I don’t think people quite understand the scope of the problem with debt: The numbers are too big, and the issue too abstract, and the fact that the government can print its own money complicates the issue.

        The best way to understand the problem is to think of it in terms of overall GDP (Gross Domestic Product), which makes sense: A $10,000 debt is a big deal to you and me, but not to Bill Gates, and a billion-dollar debt is a big deal to Estonia,  but not to the United States. Size matters.

        So realize first that, in the last 100 years of American history, we have changed how we collect federal taxes many times, with many different rates, but have never managed to collect more than 19% of GDP in taxes over a 10-year-moving average because of how the economy dynamically reacts to changes in the tax code. It always falls back to about that percentage. Over 10 years or more, 19% is our ceiling. Realize that, first.

        Then realize that entitlement spending is projected to rise to about 30% of GDP over the next quarter-century because of the demographic realities (aging baby-boomers with few working kids). That’s entitlements (and the debt-servicing thereof) alone: No military, no judiciary, no DOT or DOE: Just entitlements.

        Now overspending your ability to raise revenue by a percentage point or two is the kind of thing anyone can do if they have a China willing to loan them money. But overspending your ability to raise revenue by a third of your spending (or by half of your revenue, if you prefer to count it that way) is disaster. It’s not Greece, it’s not Argentina, it’s Weimar Germany.

        And there are only two ways out of the trap: (1.) cut spending drastically, or (2.) “print” money furiously.

        If you  say “Why not (3.) increase revenue?” you’ve missed the earlier explanation and should review it: Over a century we’ve averaged 19% of GDP no matter how GDP rose and fall and no matter what the various tax rates were. The economy dynamically reacts to changes in the tax regime. We might by dramatically increasing rates in unexpected areas be able to wring 25% out of the economy for a few years until it began to adjust again and returned to the mean (19%). But not for anything like enough years to make a 30%-of-GDP spending rate servicable.

        The political reality is that we’ll end up raising taxes, even though revenues won’t really be affected by it, purely to give Democrats political cover. It won’t matter a whit towards solving the problem: That’ll come only through money-“printing” and spending cuts. But since Democrat voters are often covetousness-driven (ironically, since the Democratic party is the party of the wealthy elite), a good metaphorical lynching of millionaires will be sufficient to help some Democrat politicians retain their jobs.

        But the solution remains spending cuts and money “printing.” (I put “printing” in scare quotes because it isn’t actually printed; it’s electronic ledger entries in major banks.)

        For fairness reasons, we ought to only cut spending, but we won’t, because to get 30% of GDP down to less than 19% (leaving a percent or two available for having a military and a judiciary)  we’re talking about cutting entitlement spending by more than 10% of GDP…which means by more than one-third of entitlement spending. That is politically impossible.

        So we’ll “print” a lot of money. A lot of money. Enough to send prices skyrocketing. The reason this “solves” the problem (note the scare quotes around “solves”) is because Social Security, which is the second-most expensive entitlement, is denominated in payments to recipients of a fixed numerical dollar amount, and U.S. government debt is likewise denominated in dollars. The U.S. government can, by “printing” money, pay granny and the Chinese exactly what it owes them according to their respective IOUs.

        Now this isn’t a real solution for granny, because “printing” so much money causes the dollar’s value to drop. Without a big expansion of the dollar supply (and corresponding drop in the dollar value) granny’s $100 check can pay her groceries; but after a lot of “money printing” that same $100 can barely buy a gallon of milk and a pork chop. She’s eating Alpo by the end of the month, but the government technically fulfilled its obligation to send her $100.

        And you can assume that our Chinese creditors will be likewise thrilled by the newly reduced buying-power of our loan repayments.

        And of course none of this s0lves the problems of the huge expense of federal expenditures that are not denominated in fixed numbers of dollars, but in measurable value. That’d include Medicare, Medicaid, PPACA or its successor, and pretty much everything else. If you promise someone $100, “money printing” can get you out of your scrape without defaulting on your obligation. But if you promise them an X-ray, it doesn’t. As you print more money, the price of the X-ray measured in dollars just keeps rising. By the time you’ve “printed” enough dollars to catch up, Joe Blow’s million-dollar 401K which he expected to keep him comfortable in retirement can barely purchase his rent any more.

        That’s where we are.

        Do you really see Obama and Democrats doing anything to help? I mean, it’s unlikely even Republicans would do much. But Obama, who apparently never saw a drastic spending increase he didn’t love? Whose whole legacy is tied to defending a single unconstitutional vast entitlement increase?


        So the only things that Obama’s been good for are (a.) his friends at Goldman Sachs et alia, (b.) to provide rhetorical support to the New Black Panthers in their attempt to start race riots in Florida, and (c.) the owners of pro shops and sellers of tee times. I certainly wish him and his family well…but preferably in retirement, with all the joys that irrelevance would bring to his family and the rest of us. Why don’t you?

        • Alex

          Why are you so curious? You wish for facts, but elections are emotional decisions.

          Randomly select an Obama disciple and ask for specific facts about his policies. You won’t get any  in reply, just feelings and sentiments like “Obama cares about us.”

        • Vishal Mehra

           1)  If the Republican priority is to repeal Obamacare then the architect of Romneycare is the oddest choice that could be made. 

          2) Are the Republicans proposing to reform the entitlements for the elderly? or only to the poor?

          3) Exactly how did Obama increase the debt?. Did he increase the entitlements?
          Stimulus? Any Republican would have done the same and did too?. Where did Bush find 700B dollars for TARP?

          4) As for mandate, didn’t Bush propose that all citizens must buy private savings accounts in his SS reform?
          5) Friends with Goldman Sachs? Are they not friends to Romney or Republicans too? Who appointed Paulson?

          • Brian English

            (1)  The Republicans in Congress will dismantle Obamacare.  Romney just has to sign off on it, which he will.

            (2)  Read Ryan’s proposed budget.

            (3)  By spending a lot more money than the government took in.  Obama has increased the debt in three years more than Bush did in eight.

            (4) No.

            (5)  They are much better friends with Obama and the Democrats.  Look at the campaign contributions.  The “Wall Street Fat Cat” rhetoric is all for show.

          • Cord_Hamrick


            To an extent Brian English has answered your questions as I would have. But let me add the following items, which while they do not correspond directly to your questions, are pertinent in that they lay the groundwork for how I answer your questions, what my assumptions and philosophy are, and almost as importantly, what positions I do not hold:

            (a.) I believe that it is important that society be wisely governed; I believe that part of governing society is a consistent rule of law; consequently, I believe it is important that society be governed in accord with the rule of law. In the United States the highest law is the Constitution. There are activities which some people wish the government to undertake which are unconstitutional. Whether or not these activities are wise in-and-of-themselves (and I believe that they almost uniformly are not) it is far more unwise to undermine the rule of law by making exceptions (with whatever mealy-mouthed excuses) to the requirement that government activity be constitutional. (I include under the heading “mealy-mouthed excuses” that trend in the last 100 years’ jurisprudence of interpreting the Constitution anachronistically so as to ascribe implausible notions and anticipations to its authors.)

            (b.) I am not a proponent of the Republican party; I am a proponent of policies executed in accord with a particular philosophy of government. This philosophy is vilified  forcefully by the Democratic Party and by all American political groups to the left-of-center (as “left” and “right” are understood in American politics, where their meanings have almost no correspondence to those in other countries). My philosophy is not entirely embraced by Republicans as a whole, either…but it is not repudiated by any of them, is considered mainstream and respectable by many who are in the respectable mainstream among Republicans, and is warmly embraced by that alliance of conservatives, right-leaning libertarians, Tea Partiers, and small-government social conservatives which make up much of the Republican base. While these latter groups do not always arrive at particular policy prescriptions the way that I do, the resulting prescriptions are uniformly similar and often identical, which makes us natural allies.

            Now to reply to your particular questions:

            1. Repeal of Obamacare is a high priority. (Elimination of the HHS mandate and restoration of religious liberty in the U.S. is higher, with or without Obamacare, although the two go together and ought to be eliminated together.)

            I agree that the architect of Romneycare is an odd choice to eliminate it. I do not agree that he is the oddest choice.  The only odder choice would be a choice which would predictably result in an Obama victory. But Romney is now the Republican nominee (barring, as I’ve said before, the sudden appearance of a dead girl and a live boy in his bed). To vote for any other person, under our first-past-the-post voting system, seems certain to split the anti-Obama vote and grant Obama another term. To opt for the architect of Obamacare is an odder way of repealing Obamacare than to opt for the architect of Romneycare.

            As (I hope) my original article made clear, Romney was not my first choice, and I think he is far from ideal. I do not think he was the first choice among those who ran of more than 20% of the GOP primary electorate, and I think no more than 5% of that electorate would have picked him as their first choice among those who could have run.

            But we live in a fallen world and very few of our choices are between an excellent option and a bad one. This one happens to be between an iffy one and a bad one. “Iffy” is preferable to “bad,” and wishing our options were different is unhelpful. The purpose of my article was to encourage others to likewise think realistically.

            Moreover, there is, as I said, a difference between Romney’s unwisely implementing a state-level program which is constitutional both under the Federal Constitution (see Amendment 10: Reserved to the States) and that state’s constitution, and Obama’s illegally implementing a federal program which is unconstitutional (Amendment 10 again: Enumerated Powers).

            2. Like Brian , I refer you to the Paul Ryan plan, which, if not quite enough, is far closer to a fix than anything else yet proposed and is probably the closest thing to a solution that has yet found political will for passage. Once again, our options do not include perfection; we choose among what is possible.

            However, I add that with respect to reforming Social Security, no proposal of which I am aware suggests reducing benefits to existing beneficiaries. Instead, they seem all to propose delaying benefits to those who currently are not beneficiaries by increasing one’s age of eligibility in proportion to one’s youth. One proposal notes that the original system made one ineligible until one had already lived past the mean life expectancy for persons born in one’s own birth year; but now the age of eligibility is far below that. Thus this proposal suggests that a 70-year-old be eligible now, but a 60-year-old at 75, a 50-year-old at 80, a 40-year old at 85, a 30-year-old at 90, and so on, but with one automatically becoming eligible when one has reached 110% of the mean life expectancy for persons born in your birth year. Eventually the 110% rule would be the new rule for all, and would remain in effect thereafter.

            So if your question is prompted by concern for the elderly, I point out here that it is the elderly who seem most inured to harm under most of the proposed reforms. I offer this as an observation; not an expression of approval or disapproval.

            3. Obama increased the debt by acting uniformly to increase budgets in every area except the military, and this includes both entitlements and discretionary spending…and in the latter, Obama is not alone, for discretionary spending began to increase in the Bush years from the moment the Democrats took Congress (that doesn’t mean Bush isn’t partly at fault…but the change from pre-2006 to post-2006 does reflect his need to negotiate with Democrats rather than Republicans when it came to budgetary matters). To borrow from an observation Ed Morrissey made over at HotAir (“Do we really have a revenue problem?” posted July 7, 2011, link here: ), “Had spending increased at a rate of inflation from 2001 forward, we would probably not been in deficit at all. Had it stayed at the rate of inflation from 2006 forward, we’d
            probably be looking at historically average deficits in terms of GDP.” And I add, had it remained under Obama similar to the last two years of the Bush administration, the deficit increases over Obama’s first term would be less than half what they are.

            Some YouTube videos make this point well, and certain related points, so I recommend them:

            Obama’s discretionary spending increases, apart from Obamacare, come in the form of regulatory increases and large subsidies for pet programs — the Solyndra kind of stuff.

            The five Vital Points to comprehend are:

            VP1: The long-term ceiling for Federal revenue is 19% of GDP; no changes to tax rates and methods in the last 100 years has ever accumulated more than 19% for long periods of time without swinging back the other way to return to a mean of 19%.

            VP2: Entitlements alone, unreformed, are slated to swell to 30% of GDP over the next quarter century. This is unsustainable. You can’t borrow enough to cover the gap between 19% and 30%, and “money printing” sufficient to cover that gap would produce hyperinflation. Either way crash and default would result and could destroy the U.S. economic system and many other economies connected to our own. This, as Igon said in Ghostbusters, “would be bad.”

            VP3: While revenues are currently around 15% of GDP and thus below 19%, that’s because of our current recession. Recessions always tend to swing the revenues as a % of GDP downward, just as boom-times swing them upward. In the end they always return to the 19% mean. So in a sense we are currently at 19% once our position in the growth cycle is accounted for. To put it another way: If we were currently in an economic boom and our revenues were only 15% of GDP, it would indicate that there was some extra revenue out there that we weren’t capturing: We could “safely” raise taxes to capture it. But we are not in a boom. The 15% of GDP we’re currently capturing is pretty much all there is to capture. Everyone knows, to quote President Obama himself, that “you can’t tax your way out of a
            recession.” Tax increases now would merely prolong the recession without appreciably increasing revenue. It not only wouldn’t get us back to 19%, it might take longer for the recession to end and return us back to growth of GDP.

            VP4: To prevent oncoming disaster, we needed to reduce discretionary spending and reform entitlements to prevent mandatory entitlement spending from exceeding 19%. (Actually, 19% minus whatever % of GDP we want to allocate to discretionary spending.)

            VP5: What Obama and the Democrats actually did was vastly increase discretionary spending, make cuts in other areas so perfunctory as to be negligible, and propose reforms to entitlements of only two kinds: (a.) revenue increases (= raising more money through taxes) and (b.) means-testing (= cutting benefits to the wealthy). But as we’ve already seen, significant revenue increases are impossible in a recession: We’re already squeezing that lemon dry, and risk merely prolonging the recession. And there aren’t enough millionaires for their exclusion from entitlements through means-testing to make any difference. For means-testing to matter, we’d need to exclude from Social Security, Medicare, et alia a huge swath of the middle class…and the Democrats won’t risk that politically.

            The last part of your question 3 was about TARP. That too was deficit spending. It was stupid. Conservatives opposed it. Bush went rogue and sided with Democrats on that point. I have no interest in defending it.

            4. The Bush proposed Social Security Reform gave Social Security Recipients an option to redirect some portion of their Social Security money to a private account which could earn higher interest. No mandate, thus no unconstitutional attempt to create commerce in order to regulate it.

            5. The revolving door between Wall Street investment banks and appointments to administration jobs since Obama took office is about twice as bad as under all previous administrations; moreover, because of TARP bailouts of those same banks, the appearance or reality of corruption is significantly greater. I recommend you read right-of-center sources’ critiques of Jon Corzine, for example, and then look for left-of-center defenses capable of answering those critiques. You won’t find any, because there really isn’t a defense.

  • poetcomic1

      I would NOT like all the foreign policy fiascoes and monster debts that Obama has so carefully nurtured to come crashing down on us in and during a Republican administration.  I’d rather Obama visibly reap what he has sowed and so, if the world is going to disintegrate I’d rather Obama be at the helm as it does.  What you call a ‘teachable’ moment.

  • MAT

    Perfection can be the enemy of the good. Mitt Romney may not be perfect, but he is two things which Obama isn’t: 1. He’s effective. He get results and knows how to deal with problems. Just look at his campaign. 2. Secondly, his vision of America is radically different from Obama’s. So anyone who is truly concerned about America’s problems, who values religious freedom, and who is prolife would be foolish and irresponsible to not vote or to vote for Obama.

    • sl-lux

      This are both very broad, shallow reasons to vote for him. What EXACTLY would Romney do if elected? Besides reversing Roe vs Wade.

  • paswhite

    As long as we are willing to settle for “good enough” that’s all we will ever get.  For Christians this election cannot simply be about beating Obama, it must be about stopping the abortion holocaust.  For nearly forty years we have settled for establishment Republicans who care more about their own ambitions than saving the unborn.  That’s why the killing goes on and on.  Stay engaged.  Vote for authentic pro-life acndaiates up and down the ballot.  But don’t ever settle for “good enough.”  When the big boys figure out what’s happening the systme will finally begin to change. 

    • Mark Rutledge

      All fine and good but we fight the battles as they come.  We fought for Santorum and lost (this time).  We’ll fight for him or someone else in future campaigns.  But for the here and now, the fight is between Romney and Obama.  There is no question which one will be better for America.

      • Brian English


        “For Christians this election cannot simply be about beating Obama, it must be about stopping the abortion holocaust.”

        And giving Obama another term and two or three more Supreme Court nominations will further that goal how?

  • Derek

    Establishment wins, yea!?!  Oh well, at least Romney came around in Massachusetts by joining the side that threatened to sue the state legislature over failing to bring up a defense of marriage amendment.  Seemed to be a check the wind for him.  The democrat controlled legislature tabled it 6 months later after a new governor was elected.

  • JCM

    HMMMM.  Let me see — return to the scam and farse of “Lesser of two Evils”. Same system intact, same Oligarchy, a change face but not policy which is the same thing in the end, no real change erver happening. 

    Anyone believing Romney will shake things up and transform the system is deluded. He will do what the powers that be want done. Perpetual War, self-destructive and hubristic  alliances and foreign policy, more crushing debt, more enslavement to the FED and bankers, more Police State fascism domestically.

    Anyone believing believing Romney is “Good Enough” deserve what they get because wheether it’s Romney or Obama — what the elites want coming will come — and it WILL come.

    • veritas

      This is all too true…if America doesn’t get it’s debt under control, it will cease to exist as a country anyways, so what would be point of reversing Roe vs Wade?Its like trying to fix the termite problem in a burning house, and Romney would do just that, while pouring gasoline on the fire simultaneously.

      The only way the US can survive is by abolishing the Fed. It’s more important than you think. Both Germany and Zimbabwe let their monetary system out of control, and look how they ended up.

  • Jhawk77

    Good column, Cord. If BHO is re-elected, it will be very difficult to turn the ship. Our freedom – especially religious freedom – is in danger. Taxes are the shackles with which government enslaves its subjects. If Romney loses the United States I was born into will no longer exist.

  • Debi R.

    Thank you for giving us a  way to smile during this time of craziness….

  • Alex

    “…with two more pro-lifers on the court we could plausibly have achieved a reversal of Roe….
    it’ll be more like 20-30 years before the next opportunity….Why? Because a lot of Catholics decided that voting for That Articulate Young Man…”

    I often want to ask the ‘Catholics’ who vote Clinton/Obama/etc—was it worth it? Did electing Clinton end poverty? Did he end unemployment? Did he bring peace to the world? What exactly did he accomplish that was worth postponing the reversal of Roe v Wade for another generation?

    • Tiredofthechickenlittles

      Roe vs Wade is NOT the only thing to vote about. It appears the Catholic Church should rename itself the holy congregation for fetus preservation.

      • A_Friend

        I think you need to find better ways to spend your time than lurking about a Catholic forum if you are not Catholic and do not like Catholics. That’s your perogotive, even if it reflects your pettiness, but stop embarrassing yourself by revealing just how impotent you are by going out of your way to jab at things you cannot grasp. I don ‘t think you even get the irony of your chosen username.

      • Hmfog Jc

        I’m sorry to see you have such devastating short and long term memory loss, or maybe just INGRATITUDE for your very own God given life.  Your Mom was a real hero because she championed the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE of our existence, the Protection of Tiredofthechickenlittles/Fetus Preservation Act.  Now then, go quickly and thank Mom.

      • Cord_Hamrick

        Who said that it was? It’s obviously the most important thing to vote over, but there are other things.

        Fortunately for us, we’re not burdened with equally-important issues; instead, some issues stand out as obviously being of higher significance. So we needn’t dither; we can comfortably prioritize preventing the commercialized murder of innocent, powerless persons over, say, offering a sop to those who’d like to promote golf as the new American Passtime.

        Even more fortunately for us, it just so happens that most or all of the other topics which might influence our votes tend in general to wind up pointing us in the same direction.

        Take for example concern for both the economic and cultural capital of the poor. Leftist policies tend on the whole to undermine both. As a consequence, the person who votes strategically to keep leftists out of office tends on the whole to assist his needier neighbors. It’s called exercising the “preferential option for the poor,” and it’s important.

        But how nice for us that this important topic leads us to vote for (or, more accurately, against) the very same folks as the pro-life topic!

        Or, consider the evangelical mission of the Church in society. A person who notes that leftist arrogation of cultural power in the hands of government tends to sideline the Church has good reason to oppose leftism, so that souls will be saved.

        So, again: The most likely person to beat the left-of-center candidate is our natural pick.

        Seen from that perspective, we’re in luck when the General Election comes: We won’t be forced to weigh issues of nearly-identical import, or to compare one candidate with a mix of right and wrong policies against another candidate with a mix of right and wrong policies.

        We are instead in the position of opting with varying degrees of distaste for one candidate with a mixed track record against another candidate who’s track record is uniformly vomitous. It isn’t as good as a choice between, as I said earlier, a Mr. Potato-Head ideal Frankencandidate and a guy with a vomitous record. But all things considered, things could be considerably worse.

        Just think: You could be a Coptic Christian mulling your elective options in Egypt right now.

        Just keeping things in perspective.

  • msmischief

    Given what was learned about the church that Obama attended — how on earth can religion be the comparison point?

  • daisy

    Good enough won’t win. Nobody loves this man.

    • Cord_Hamrick

      Well, presumably his wife and kids love him.

      But, yes, there’s little love lost with the average GOP voter, who longed for  a strongly consistent conservative candidate and couldn’t find one.

      But the average GOP voter is also strongly motivated to vote for Obama’s defeat, and with excellent reason.

      Look at how many folks rose to dizzying heights in the GOP primary largely because, for a time, they were the non-Romney. They always fell because they had big problems of one kind or another, which came to light as soon as the closer inspection caused by frontrunner status began, and which made the next non-Romney option look appealing.

      But now that same energy will be turned towards finding the non-Obama. And his negatives are already well-vetted. And once he’s nominated — which is absolutely going to happen unless someone catches him with a dead girl and a live boy — there won’t be any other non-Obama options around.

  • J G

    Yes, I am not thrilled about the Mormon thing. He is not quite as conservative as I might like. BUT I have listened to him. He is basically essentially conservative. He is NOT like Obama. He is squeaky clean  morally, which is not small thing. He is competent, which Obama is not (thank God or we would be in worse shape). He will do some solid work to fix the economy, he will defend the nation, and he will appoint judges who follow the COTUS. I can live with that and so should any conservative or moderate for that matter. I am voting for Mitt and I hope you will too.

  • J17ghs

    Romney governs like a Marxist (lots of big government control-freak programs), campaigns like a Marxist (vicious lies and attack ads) and works with a lot Marxists. Romney the candidate will acquiesce to the Marxist-Muslim hatemonger Obama and bearly put a dent in the guy’s very vulnerable thin-skinned facade. If Romney wins the election, which I doubt, he’ll simply make a few cosmetic, inconsequential changes to energy policies, health care mandates, debt reduction and call it done. I think you need to quit listening to your Marxist-steeped Jesuit friends when writing your articles. You sound like the old Catholic “Ramparts” writers, most of whom were Marxist operatives.

    • J G

       Mitt a Marxist? Even those who hate him don’t say that. Can you write a critique without using the word “Marxist.” I am not one btw, I am a Reagan Republican. We are the ones who defeated Marxism.

    • MAT

      This is over the top. Who did you support and why? How many of the debates did you watch? I can say that I watched all but two because I am most concerned about abortion and the fiscal crisis of our country. Anyone who lumps Romney together with Obama, either has his own personal agenda or just isn’t informed.

    • Meggie

      Neither Romney nor Obama is either Marxist or Muslim. 

    • Cord_Hamrick

      I almost agree with you. (“Almost” because, while you’re correct to accuse him of instincts which lean towards big-government central-control solutions, the Marxism thing represents significant rhetorical overreach on your part. You’re runing the risk of accidentally canonizing a Marx Codicil to Godwin’s Law.)

      And yet: Better than Obama. Were Obama not so genuinely awful, this would of course not be the case. If you prefer, you may say: “Obama’s even worse than Romney, and that’s sayin’ somethin’.” And it is.

      But here we are.

    • Brian English

      We are not electing a king.  We are electing a President.  Romney will have to deal with a conservative House and, hopefully, a Republican Senate. 

  • SK

    It still would be nice to be able to vote for a presidential candidate who you can really believe in. This election still basically comes down to voting for the lesser of two evils. So much for democracy…

  • hombre111

    Yep.  Proof positive that Crisis is simply a tool of the Republican Party. 

    • J G

       You expect support for Obama who is currently attempting to end religious liberty and force the Catholic Church into the ghetto? You are a tool of the Democrat party.

    • Cord_Hamrick

      Why, yes: Because I’m showing such overwhelmingly uncritical enthusiasm for their nominee!

      • hombre111

        Hi, Cord.  Please read your article again and see that it is all about how to get the Republicans back into power.   This is blatantly partisan for a “Catholic” magazine.  Unless it is the Republican Catholic magazine. 

        • Cord_Hamrick


          Ah, now I see the confusion. I am sorry, I shouldn’t have been so dismissive of your initial remark.

          I stated that I think that having the upcoming election produce a
          Republican president and congressional majority is likely to produce wiser and better government than having a Democrat president and congressional majority.

          From this, you conclude that I am a “tool” of the Republican party. But I’m not sure how you would define the word “tool” as you’re using it here, so I’m not sure whether to agree with you or disagree.

          For the moment I will set aside the contemptuous tone that seems often to accompany the use of the word “tool” (the rhyme with “fool” gives it a felt association that wouldn’t exist in another language) and focus purely on the definition: I will treat your original statement as if it were delivered in an emotional monotone.

          I think being a “tool” of a political party, in this context, could be defined in either of two ways:

          1. A person whose actions and words are currently
          useful to that political party, in that they assist that party in
          winning an upcoming election, although that same person may not be
          reliable for speaking or acting in favor of that party in the future;


          2. A person whose actions and words are always by
          going to be useful to that political party, in that
          they will always support that party in whatever it does no matter what,
          and can thus be relied upon to speak or act in that party’s favor
          throughout any conceivable future.

          Now, as to whether I match either definition:

          I am not a Republican though I have voted for Republicans more than
          for Libertarians and for Libertarians more than Democrats. I am not an
          uncritical proponent of the Republican party. I am rather a proponent
          of policies executed in pursuit of particular ends, within limits
          defined by a particular philosophy of government.

          At present, this philosophy is vilified forcefully by the Democratic
          Party and by all American political groups to the left-of-center (as
          “left” and “right” are understood in American politics, where their
          meanings have almost no correspondence to those in other countries).

          However, at present, my philosophy of governance is not entirely embraced by Republicans, either. It is not repudiated by many of them, is considered
          mainstream and respectable by many who are in the respectable mainstream
          among Republicans, and is warmly embraced by that alliance of
          conservatives, right-leaning libertarians, Tea Partiers, and
          small-government social conservatives which make up much of the
          Republican base. While these latter groups do not always arrive at
          particular policy prescriptions the way that I do, the resulting
          prescriptions are uniformly similar and often identical, which makes us
          natural allies.

          So I think that tells us that I cannot be honestly construed to be a
          “tool” of the Republican party according to the second definition. I do
          not say, “my party, right or wrong”; I do not even claim them as “my
          party” except for convenience at primary-voting time.

          Definition 1 for “tool” remains plausible, of course. But there is no
          discredit in it, so I am unconcerned to be so labeled. Indeed, under
          that definition, any person whose voting record shows more votes for one
          party than for another would be called that party’s “tool” and thus the
          vast majority of all voters would be found in one toolbox or another.

          I will only note that if any political party finds me useful to have
          among the electorate and the commentariat today, it
          is only because their policy advocacy currently lines up with mine more
          than their competitors’. The principles remain steady; whether a
          particular political party will act in accord with them in the future is
          anyone’s guess. But as a voter living in a fallen world, I must choose
          the best option from among various imperfect selections.

          Fair enough?

          • hombre111

            As usual, a long and thoughtful reply, so thanks.  I stand by my charge that Crisis is the semi-official Republican Catholic magazine.   Nothing dishonorable about this, as long as it is out in the open. 

            Oh.  And an interesting article on the Washington Post about the difference between the liberal and conservative brain.  It explains a lot about Crisis and my reaction to so much that Crisis and its bloggers say. 

  • Robert Boehm

    Whether WMR or BHO is the next president, the fact remains, the powers in the shadows, that is, those who control money, will still be running our country– into their socialist/communist NWO. The spread of the errors of Russia is precisely what was promised by Our Lady of Fatima should her “requests” not be granted.

  • Frodo

    One of the best articles I have ever read in Crisis. Kudo’s.

  • “Santorum now has the same chances of becoming president as Romney” (from Twitter)

  • Nice try but Catholics cannot choose “the lesser of two evils…” That’s the world talking brother….

    • Cord_Hamrick

       I’m confused by your comment, John.

      Except in choosing to follow Jesus Christ, Catholics never do anything other than choose the lesser of two evils, or the greater of two goods if you prefer that terminology, or the optimal mix of cost and benefit if you want to be even more precise. That’s life.

      The only way I can reconcile your comment with the realities of living in a fallen world is if you are substituting “intrinsic evil” for “evil” and saying that a Catholic may not opt for an intrinsic evil (one may not do [intrinsic] evil that good come of it). This of course is accurate, but not pertinent in this case.

  • Meggie

    He’s such a chameleon. He claims to be prolife, but Romneycare openly funds abortion. Otherwise it’s very similar to Obamacare. He used to be one of the greenest candidates out there. In 2007, he supported 50 mpg fuel efficiency standards, renewable energy, electric cars, etc., but he has back-pedalled to get the right-wing anti-science vote during the current primaries. Who knows if he’ll swing back. He appears to have flip-flopped, within a framework of a few hours, on the Blunt amendment. Romney is not going to win the presidency if he runs on Santorum’s issues. The country has rejected them. He seems to have no problem shifting his beliefs as convenient, but it’s going to be very difficult to figure out what he really stands for. 

    • J G

       Did Obama close Gitmo? No? Flip flop. And Obama worships abortion. I will take Mitt any day.

  • tower_of_london

    With all due respect, the choice is not just between Obama and Romney, but it’s also a choice between the short term and a long term impacts of the choice.  Romney has run the most internally destructive campaign in any Republican presidential race.  That’s not “squeeky clean.”  He destroyed good people like Santorum and he lied about them in the process.  The distilled message of Romney for political operatives is that true pro lifers can’t win and they can be marginalized even in the Republican party.  They are like blacks in the Democratic party — they can be ignored.   The affect of Romney’s remake of Republicanism could effect Republican presidential races for decades, particularly if he wins in the fall.  He may technically be “pro life” but he has treated pro-lifers brutally.  Ronald Reagan NEVER did that.  Obama is wicked.  He is incompetent.  He is damaging the country.  I get that.  But Romney will only be better in the short run and for the wrong reasons that serve our greed, and not our consciences.  He’ll be better for the economy, but he’ll pick more Justice Breyers (Bush I) who will be no different on Roe v. Wade than Kagan or Sotomayor.  I’d rather write in Santorum, let Obama win, and have a real choice in 2016 — afer Republicans finally learn that we must save our souls to save our country and not the other way around. 

    • Brian English

      Breyer was apppointed by Clinton.  And Romney will not appoint Justices like Kagan and Sotomayor.  He is far more likely to appoint Justices like Roberts and Alito, and that is exactly what we need.

      • tower_of_london

        I meant Souter who was appointed by Bush I, not Breyer. Romney will take the party left and he will not appoint Justices like Roberts and Alito because he is a panderer. He will try to pick middling judges who don’t offend people as being too conservative because they are clearly moral in their outlook. Romney’s effect on the party will be to disenfranchise Santorum Republicans. He’s already destroyed several of them. He’s your moral leader? This isn’t about perfect being the enemy of good. It’s bad being the enemy of good. This short term fix damages true pro life position in the Republican party for decades. At least if Obama destroys us, people will realize it came from the left.

        • Benglish

          On Souter, Bush I didn’t do his homework.  And Romney is not going to try to pull the party left, because he certainly knows that if he does, the group of Republicans who didn’t run this time will launch a primary challenge in 2016 that Romney will lose.

          Neither Romney, nor any other politician, is my moral leader.  I actually would have voted for Santorum, but that is over now.  Time to focus on the real enemy.

  • Anonymous Seminarian

    So, wait, has Romney won the nomination yet? Isn’t this a bit premature? Isn’t there another candidate infinitely more preferable to him? One who, while not as ardently and outspokenly pro-life as we might like has never voted to fund planned parenthood (unlike Santorum), who would actually reduce the size of government, actually do things to reduce our debt and unconstitutional wars, welfare, etc.? Don’t we have a chance to rally behind Ron Paul at this point? Isn’t it time for a principled candidate who we know will actually do what he says?

    • Cord_Hamrick


      So far as I can see, yes, he has won the nomination, and no, this isn’t premature. The math was a little more complex if one were trying to see how Santorum could find a path to the nomination. But for Paul, the math is easy: There is no path, and there is no scenario short of Invasion Of The Tea Party Body Snatchers which would allow Paul to be the surprise outcome of a backroom deal in a brokered convention.

      I grant that Ron Paul shows consistently better instincts in domestic policy and in grasping the constitutional limits of the office. In foreign policy his views are mixed, but better than a lot of folks, and in a choice between him and Obama I’d obviously vote for Paul. In a general-election choice between Paul and Romney I’d obviously vote for Paul. In a general-election choice between Paul and Gingrich I’d be torn, but because Gingrich’s narcissim and sense of destiny is a bit scary, and since Gingrich allows his conservative grasp of the limits of government to lapse whenever he sniffs the scent of a grandiose legacy-making idea, I’d still probably go with Paul.

      So, even though I said what I said about Paul (re: wanting to fit him with a restraining bolt), I hope it’s clear I have immense respect for his consistency. Of all the GOP candidates his views on domestic policy are closest to my own.

      But, in a choice between Paul and Romney, the winner of whom will go up against Obama? In that choice, I opt for the guy most likely to defeat Obama, and that’s Romney. So far as I can tell Paul would merely be stomped, even if he made no campaign-trail errors; and he is — or at least, his team is — undisciplined enough that he’d make some.

      • Martial_Artist

        Mr. Hamrick,

        According to information I saw this morning, even without gaining any of the delegates already connected to Santorum, Dr. Paul has a plurality of delegates chosen to date. And that does not even count the Santorum delegates who are beginning to support Dr. Paul. Therefore, although Romney might still manage to win the nomination, he is actually behind Paul in delegates.

        You may not be premature in considering how you will vote should Romney win the election, but you are most certainly premature in thinking this is anywhere close to Romney having done so. I think perchance you have been paying too much attention to the “straw votes” in a large number of states, at the expense of the caucus states.

        Pax et bonum,
        Keith Töpfer

        • Cord_Hamrick


          At last count, Paul has won 52 delegates. Santorum, in contrast, had 270 when he dropped out. Romney has 684 and counting. Or at least that’s what I just read in three different places from straight-news websites. Not that I trust those to deliver unbiased news in general…but one has to get the numbers from somewhere!

          Where are you getting your numbers? I believe you if you said you saw somewhere that Paul had a “plurality”; that is to say, more than Romney albeit not a majority. I’ll believe that you saw it somewhere…but that it’s correct seems utterly out-of-synch with what I’m reading everywhere else.

          • Martial_Artist


            I got the plurality assertion on Saturday or Sunday of last weekend in a broadcast email from the Paul HQ organization. As to what any of the MSM says (or, perhaps more significantly, doesn’t say), their bias is as obvious as their ignorance. To cite but one of a number of examples, when the “straw poll” in Iowa was reported, the MSM reported percentages of the 1st-, 2nd- and 4th-place finishers, very conveniently ignoring the man who finished 3rd (Hint: his initials are R.P.). Further, they report the” beauty contest” (i.e., “straw poll”) results as though they actually represent delegate selections, which they typically don’t.  You trust them at your peril. W.r.t the MSM I am inclined to rely on the old adage “Don’t believe anything they say, nor half of what you see them do.”

            Further, I did not say that Dr. Paul was going to be the nominee, just that it is much too early to rule him out of the picture, given the present “homelessness” of the already selected Santorum delegates—according to everything I have heard, including not just the broadcast email but other news sources, are not particularly fond of Mr. Romney. Santorum was not substantially better than Romney, IMV, but his stated positions are noticeably closer to those of Dr. Paul than to those of Romney. And, given Romney’s visibly insincere tone in debates and public speeches, compared to the current incumbent’s more polished and seemingly sincere oratorical style, I have a great deal of difficulty in believing that a big-government, Rockefeller Republican like Romney can defeat Obama. Gingrich is a loose cannon, and the seas have been running quite high, not to mention his vague mixed-message public statements, make him more of a liability than an asset.

            My Legislative District in Washington held its convention last Saturday. Despite neither Romney nor Paul having a majority of delegates to the convention, the six (6) delegates elected to County and State convention were split 3-3, the 6 alternates divided Paul(5)-Romney(1), and the one Romney alternate is the sixth alternate. My wife and I are 1st and 4th alternates, respectively. Any Romney delegate who doesn’t show up is one more delegate for Dr. Paul at County and State conventions.

            Pax et bonum,
            Keith Töpfer

    • J G

       Ron needs to stop blaming us for 911 and the loon notion that “we don’t know everything yet.” It is that kind of thing that turns me off. Isolationism is also not much of a foreign policy.

  • theorist

    Unfortunate news, but not exactly a surprise ending.

  • paul zerovnik

    No Cord, Mitt is “not good enough”. I vote proLife which means I vote the constitution. RON PAUL has my vote.

    • Cord_Hamrick

       I’m tempted by Ron Paul, same as the rest of you. Keep in mind, I’m the Crisis Magazine writer who’s accused of being too libertarian.

      But sadly, Paul hasn’t any money with which to compete; his (almost entirely correct!) views on domestic policy are too easily lampooned as crackpottery by unfriendly news outlets, he’s no more appealing to black and Latino (! despite the libertarian take on border issues!) voters than Romney is, and he’s absolutely toxic to Jewish voters who see him as an anti-semite.

      So give him every Tea Party voter in the nation (including me) and he still won’t pull 35% of the vote. It shouldn’t be that way, but it is. Government education and ignorance-enhancing mass media have done their job, producing low-functioning sheep who’ll vote for bread and circuses, and not enough folks were privately- and home-schooled to compensate for it. Sad but true: There just aren’t enough Hillsdale College graduates to save our bacon. Just as you go to war with the army you have, you go to the polls with the populace you have.

      Plus, he hasn’t got the delegates, and is absolutely not going to be the beneficiary of a smoke-filled room in a brokered convention. So you’re talking third-party or write-in, aren’t you?

      This is an expensive election to go teaching the GOP a (much deserved) lesson, friend.

      • Martial_Artist

        Mr. Hamrick,

        You write of Congressman Paul that ” he hasn’t got the delegates, and is absolutely not going to be the beneficiary of a smoke-filled room in a brokered convention.” Your comment was obviously written before the weekend’s Rasmussen tracking poll which showed the Congressman defeating Obama while Romney v. Obama was a dead heat. Second, there are indications that the Santorum delegates are sufficiently disaffected with Romney and sufficiently close to the Congressman’s Constitutional conservatism that it is clearly too early to rule out their largely choosing Paul over Romney. Finally, there is the actual delegate count—see my reply to your reply to Seminarian, below— which may not be what you think it is.

        Pax et bonum,
        Keith Töpfer


  • Kell70507

    Romney is a spineless political animal straight from central casting. Anyone who believes that he’ll make policy decisions for reasons other than political expediency is naive. Romney has been bought and paid for by neo-conservative special interest groups and he will be entirely loyal to their agenda. He’ll follow the proven script of saying what conservatives want to hear about abortion and health care and then ignore them. Don’t vote for this charlatan.

    • Cord_Hamrick


      Skipping over your use of the nearly meaningless term “neo-conservative”…,

      (UPDATE: Sorry, that came across as snarky on my part, which wasn’t my intent. My intended tone was more like, “I’m not sure what you mean by the term ‘neo-conservative’ because it seems everyone has a different definition…but setting that aside for a moment….”)

      What I wrote in the original article already answers your objection, doesn’t it?

      To wit:

      So Romney’s a flip-flopper? Well y’know, sometimes it’s about the lesser
      evil. To offer an extreme example: Given the choice between a serial
      killer who’s full-bore gung-ho about serial killing, and one who’s a
      little conflicted and less-than-entirely dedicated to his work, give me the waffler.
      Obama’s a full-bore gung-ho post-American leftist class warrior with a
      penchant for undermining the Constitution. Romney, even if he’s a bit
      left of where you wish he was, still isn’t all that.

      • Kell70507


        Well, if you want that to be your response I guess we can call it an answer. Being a waffler isn’t what I object to nor is it his greatest flaw. He subscribes to an agenda that’s become all too typical of mainstream republicans. Republicans now spend as much as democrats on dubious wars, unfunded liabilities, and other big government spending programs. As a former Taxachusetts constituent of his I know first hand that he’ll say all the right things to get elected and then implement health care plans and other federal plans that will further indebt us and our heirs.

        • Cord_Hamrick


          I sympathize with all your concerns here. I will object only to one statement: That Republicans now spend as much as Democrats. While it is true that Republicans and Democrats both share in our current fiscal plight, they do not share equally.

          May I recommend some YouTube videos on the topic?

          These give a sense of perspective…much needed, when such large numbers are being bandied about!

          Also, please read some of my other replies here in this comment thread, will you? Other folks (notably Vishal) have raised similar issues and I went into greater depth in reply.

  • Alex

    Lesser of Two Evils?

    Obama may be considered an ‘evil’ to the extent that some of his polices are, but Romney is not an evil in any way, just a mediocrity. Hardly the ideal candidate, but the one who has a good chance of attracting the Undecided Votes that decide elections.

    So it’s the Lesser of an Evil or a Mediocrity. Easy choice for some of us. 

  • pamelanak

    I’m holding my nose with both hands and voting  for Mittens, something of a physical challenge.  I know I said I wouldnt vote for any Republican candidate but RP, but it was the vile  and vicious attack on the Church that will propel me to the polls.

  • It is a shame that we come down to maybe the lesser of two evils…but isnt Romney more pro-life?   That in itself is cause for joy.   But can he prevent millions of abortions over the next 4 years….and a shame that many Catholics do not trust in their prayers when it comes to protecting life.       If we continue to leave God out of our lives and our country,  He will simply decide not to step in and bring this country back to where it should be.   

  • Mima

    Cord, you’ve convinced me re. Romney.  I’ve disliked him all during the primaries, but we cannot have 4 more of Obama!  

    • Cord_Hamrick

      My work here is done.

  • Martial_Artist


    You write: “Anyone who lumps Romney together with Obama, either has his own personal agenda or just isn’t informed.” I would note that we share two concerns. IMHO, you underestimate Romney’s grasp of the fiscal crisis, you overestimate his abilities effectively to deal with it, or a little of both. All of Romney’s economic successes came in the private (market) sector. There is no market for government, so government must necessarily operate in a systematically different manner than do commercial firms. If you were to read a small (126 pages, octavo—about 6″ x 9″) book titled Bureaucracy by the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, you would begin to understand the likely limitations that candidate Romney brings to the table.

    To which I would respond that your conclusion is an overreach. I gladly lump Romney with Obama on the basis of two conclusive issues:

    • RomneyCare was the openly acknowledged progenitor of ObamaCare. Both are unabashedly socialist designs. Anyone who can boast about supporting Obamacare can, rightly, be defined in an operational sense as being a socialist.*

    • Given the sheer magnitude of the Federal debt (not the deficit, although it is the unfunded deficits which amassed the debt), there is, in my considered opinion, only one major party candidate whose approach to dealing with that debt has any realistic chance of averting a major economic meltdown in this nation within the next 5-15 years (20 at the outside). All of the other candidates from either major party have outlined plans which will be wholly inadequate to avert such a likely catastrophic outcome. Congressman Paul, not Romney, is the sole candidate to whom I refer. Therefore, if Romney is not going to solve the single biggest threat to the continued existence of the United States as a free and reasonably prosperous nation, that puts him in precisely the same group as Obama.

    There is neither personal agenda, nor lack of information, involved. The categorization is based solely on the politico-philosophical similarities and likely economic consequences of the two candidates, Romney and Obama. If either man is elected, we might as well say goodbye to the nation of which we are citizens and in whose Navy I served for a bit over 20 years.

    Pax et bonum,
    Keith Töpfer

  • Martial_Artist


    The poll was published on Saturday, according to the link to it I received via broadcast email from NewsMax. The delegate info came in an email directly from inside campaign HQ for the Congressman.

    Pax et bonum,
    Keith Töpfer

    • Cord_Hamrick


      In that case I would question the delegate info. If Santorum and Gingrich opted to flip their delegates to Paul, and if then there was a mass migration of unpledged delegates, you might get that plurality. But I don’t see that happening, or not soon. I can’t imagine how the campaign could honestly say that Paul had a plurality of current delegate count. Perhaps it was only in one state’s primary results, not a plurality over the whole U.S.?

      As for the Rasmussen poll, I found it now. Apparently it hadn’t even been on Rasmussen’s website until today although the campaigns most pleased with it found out about it yesterday or the day before. Here are my observations about it:

      1. I’m glad to see Paul has so much traction;
      2. He is truly preferable to Obama (even if it’s only by a single percentage point) so I’m glad to see, for a change, a poll saying so;
      3. The same poll put Romney dead even with Obama;
      4. That puts both Paul’s and Romney’s comparisons with Obama within the margin of error;
      5. This is one tracking poll. Hopefully it’s a trend, but we don’t know that yet.

      Beyond making those observations, I’ll wait and see…but I don’t have any serious belief that the picture will change much.

      To really reconsider Paul as our anti-Obama (because I agree with everyone else that there’s nothing especially desirable about Romney except as an alternative to Obama), we’d need to see him consistently showing not only an ability to beat Obama, but an ability to beat Obama more widely and certainly than Romney.

      If Paul starts showing better than Obama, but so does Romney, then the situation would be more or less unchanged.

      If Romney were to remain merely even with Obama while Paul began to consistently beat him by double the margin of error? Then we’d have to discuss a smoke-filled-room nomination because at that point, Romney’d still have more delegates (from every source I’ve found).

      We shall see.

  • veritas

    No. Just no. Why all of the sudden is Ron Paul thrown out of the picture? Oh, right, because CNN says he cant win. This article makes the grave error of assuming all the secular media’s reports are true, which is not a usual thing for Crisis.

    Please, God, don’t let anyone else read this. Ron Paul needs all the support he can get…Romney is like Obama minus abortion.

  • Proteios1

    Ive noticed a lot of Mormon commercials on tv. I think the rise of Romney will bring with it, and has to some extent already, the rise of Mormonism. At least promotionals. I think this is a frightening reality when we have two choices for president. One who pretends to be Christian but whose real values are in question. And the other whose ‘faith’ openly mocks Christianity. You decide which is which. I think either choice means Christianity takes a hit and gets twisted in the mainstream eyes….even more.

    • givelifeachance2

      Those Mormon commercials are Romney product placements.

  • givelifeachance2

    Ron Paul can be thrown Gingrich, Santorum votes and he deserves them because he is by far more the Catholic than Romney.  That is what you should be advocating now, instead of allowing Mitt to measure White House curtains.
    Then don’t forget Paul will peel away many more Independents (and Democrats) than Romney would in November, even though they didn’t show up in the Republican primary.

    I refuse to be guilted into voting for a Republicrat that failed to stare down Obama on eligibility, Obamacare, or impeachment.  These were low-hanging fruit!  Not to mention Romney’s sickening flip-flop stand on the issues.  The cost of his flamboyant search for that girl, I’m sure, was simply an investment in his political career, as usual.  If we fail to vote out Obama, I will hold Republicrat Lucy’s like you responsible, who hold up the commie-lite football every four years for us Charlie Brown sheep to kick.

    See you in the gulag.