Search This Blog


Friday, October 19, 2012

Why my good friend Mark won't vote for Romney

I respect Mark who is a fellow rescuer. I met him in a courtroom after an Operation Rescue event at a Virginia abortion mill back in the '80s when several hundred of us were being held for booking. They put us in an Arlington courtroom because there wasn't enough room at the jail. I've argued Mark's position and I agree about lying politicians. I read a statement from National Right to Life yesterday calling Romney "pro-life" and was sickened. Mark's opinion deserves to be heard and I continue to pray about my own vote. We certainly need an outpouring of the Holy Spirit! Our Lady, Seat of Wisdom, inform our minds and hearts with your love of the unborn.

Hi Mary Ann,

I hope you are doing well. I've been reading your blog entries about the election and I wanted to comment, but I guess that my comments were too long to fit. I think that your earlier analysis back in August was correct. I wanted to tell you why I will not be voting for Romney.

Both Romney and Obama are psychopathic, narcissistic liars.

It matters not which one is President. Nothing will change regarding abortion. Abortion is legal through all nine months of pregnancy and it will still be no matter which liar is President. Planned Parenthood has been federally funded for decades, regardless of which Party controls Congress or the Presidency, and it will still be federally funded no matter which liar is President.

Every four years it's the same old blah, blah, blah, blah - "you must vote for the lesser of two evils or the world will end". How low will we go? Is there anyone with an "R" after their name that we wouldn't vote for? A year ago the pro-life rubes were saying “anybody but Romney” and now he is their darling?

Well, I consider them both equally evil and will not be voting for either one. In fact, Romney might even be worse, since he seems more likely to start another illegal, unjust, immoral civil war in whatever foreign land is considered the latest Nazi Germany by the racketeers of American Corporatism and the heretics of American Nationalism.

And no, I am not looking for the "perfect" candidate. But I will not vote for a pro-abortion liar like Romney. And I am sick of being told that not voting for Romney is the same as voting for Obama, as if the liar with an (R) after his name is the default vote for a Catholic.

I've enclosed just a few quotes from Romney over the years, since many Catholics seem to have the idea that he is pro-life. (There is plenty of additional documentation of his positions over the years for anyone interested in the facts.) He says whatever he needs to say depending on what he thinks will help him get elected. He's pro-abortion when he's running in Massachusetts in 1994; he's "pro-life" when he's considering a run in Utah in 2000. He's pro-abortion when he’s running in Massachusetts again in 2002; he's "pro-life" when he decides to run for the Republican nomination for President because he thinks he won't get the nomination otherwise. Of course, his "pro-life" position is not really pro-life, since he thinks it's OK to kill some babies depending on the circumstances. And note his latest quote from last month - it's identical to the current law under Roe v. Wade - "health of the mother"! Oh, I know his campaign explained his slip of the tongue. I’m sorry, but a real pro-lifer does not continually have slips of the tongue on the abortion issue. And we're in dreamland if we think that he's going to get rid of Obamacare. He was the originator of Obamacare in Massachusetts, where it also includes payment for all abortions.

June 12, 1994 - Mitt Romney attended a Planned Parenthood fundraiser and donated money to them.

Mitt Romney, October 25, 1994 Senate campaign debate:
“I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law, and the right of a woman to make that choice.”

Mitt Romney, October 25, 1994 Senate campaign debate:
“All people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.” (This continues to be Romney’s stated position - no flip-flop there.)

Mitt Romney April, 2002, campaign for Massachusetts Governor:
"I respect and will fully protect a woman's right to choose. That right is a deeply personal one, and the women of our state should make it based on their beliefs, not mine and not the government's."
Mitt Romney 2002 campaign website:
"As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's."

Mitt Romney, May 27, 2005 press conference (this is six months after his phony pro-life "conversion"): "I have indicated that as governor, I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice, and so far I've been able to successfully do that."

Mitt Romney, CBS interview, August 27, 2012 (when asked if he agrees with the Republican National platform on abortion):
"No. My position has been clear throughout this campaign. I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother."

In conclusion, a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama. (That’s my answer to the irritating comments by people who insist that if I don’t vote for Liar R, I am by default voting for Liar D. Funny how they never say if I don’t vote for Liar D, I am by default voting for Liar R.) I personally will be voting for Virgil Goode. And no, he is not a perfect candidate, but he is a good (pun intended) candidate. So, count my vote however you like, but I will count it for what it is - a vote for Virgil Goode.

God bless you.

Mark Egger


Ray Schneider said...

Well I somewhat agree on the matter of abortion although I think Ryan is far better than Biden if we are allowed to go further down the ticket.

On the other hand there is more to the governance of the nation than abortion, especially if the two candidates that are plausible winners are identical. Opting out of the system altogether is not really an option since that abrogates your responsibility as a citizen which is to vote for the candidate that is the least evil and offers the most prospect for improvement.

I think that's clearly Romney. What is a shame is that our system is so unable to mirror the true composition of the electorate. We are being constantly gamed by the establishment.

Cannoli said...

Politicians reflect the attitudes and the desires of the electorate. In this case, neither candidate appeals to your dear friend but no viable candidate would.

Why is that?

The reason that neither candidate appeals to your friend is that both candidates reflect the attitudes of the American electorate including the attitudes of the majority of Catholics who (not only voted for Obama in '08) but currently do not have a problem with the legality of either abortion or same-sex marriage.

The responsibility for this unfortunate reality lies directly at the feet of American bishops who have forsaken their sacred DUTY to properly shepherd/catechize the laity.

We have the kinds of candidates that we deserve and this will not change until Catholic bishops take their teaching responsibilities seriously.

Currently, they do not and a perfect example of that occurred last night when the Cardinal Archbishop of NY invited and was photographed partying with the Abortionist in Chief.

What kind of message does such an act have on Catholics who are unclear about the abhorrence of abortion?

Might they think that if abortion was really such a 'big deal' surely the head of the USCCB wold not have allowed such a man to appear at a Catholic event much less would this Cardinal be seen photographed with him.

To compound the travesty, we have boot-licking, in the tank for Dolan, Catholic commentators lauding the Cardinal for his “open mindedness.”

It's disgusting, hypocritical and an embarrassment to every Catholic who is serious about their faith. But, regrettably, it is not surprising coming from a typical Amchurch bishop.

Theranter said...

Then your good friend Mark is as complicit in the downward spiral towards forced abortions. At least Romney is the first step in the other direction, and tossing a vote away is like voting twice (in the same election) for Obama. Think about it. Romney believes in FREEDOM - a non-dictorial state, which is the first step away from the dictator-train we are on. I dearly hope your friend reconsiders.

mark said...

Dear Theranter,

Could you please back up your belief in Romney with some concrete facts? Or is it just wishful thinking on your part?

And how ridiculous for you to say that by me voting for the pro-life Virgil Goode rather than the pro-abortion, war-mongering liar Romney, I am somehow complicit in forced abortion.

Think, Pooh, think.

Anonymous said...

I believe that all Catholics concerned with bringing an end to abortion in this country (which should be all Catholics, but that's another matter) have to support Romney. I concede that neither Romney nor Obama will do much to end abortion directly, but Romney would certainly appoint conservative pro-life justices. I'm not trying to be confrontational, but Mark, you know darn well that Virgil Goode will not be president unless pigs start flying. Considering that you come from arguably the most crucial swing state, a vote for Goode instead of Romney is indirectly supporting Obama.

If Romney were to become president, he would appoint conservative justices--let's be honest Scalia and Thomas aren't going to be around forever, and should Ginsburg and Kennedy retire or die, Romney would be able to either replenish the first two prolife justices or replace two pro Roe v Wade justices. Obama would appoint unabashedly proabortion judges.

Voters need to use common sense and stomach their votes for Romney.

Ray Schneider said...

The reality is that we live in a two party system. History shows that 3rd party candidates just rob votes from the candidate that they are most similar to so that in this case it would hurt Romney and help Obama.

Romney is so clearly superior to Obama on a whole host of issues that it is insane to vote for a third party candidate. That would only make sense if both major party candidate were so bad that there was no preference about which would win so that a 3rd party vote would be a protest vote for not being given a choice. I don't think that situation applies here.

Romney is hugely better on the economics issues. Claims to be pro-life with a mixed record but at least giving lip service. He actually believes in America which Obama obviously doesn't going all over the world apologizing for us and bowing to foreign princes.

Frankly Romney has looked better to me when I've had an opportunity to see and listen to him and not just see him through the lens of the media. He is a well intended and good man given his charities and personal commitment to others. We could certainly do far worse and Obama is the epitome of far worse.

Restore-DC-Catholicism said...

I think Ray Schneider and Anon of two hours ago bring much common sense to this discussion. I'm preparing my own post to reply as it won't fit into a com box. I will leave this tidbit that might help explain why Mr Egger's proposed action will help Obama:

Romney is the only real candidate who stands a chance of unseating Obama. Any vote diverted from Romney, for whatever reason, is one less vote that Obama needs to win reelection.

I do believe that both Ginsburg and Stevens are failing in health and are on the verge of retiring (if not dying). Whoever wins the White House will nominate their successors - influencing the nation for decades to come.

mark said...

Dear Anonymous,

Again, do you have any facts to back up your statement that "Romney would certainly appoint conservative pro-life justices"? Where did you get such a belief from? There is absolutely nothing from his lengthy political record to come to that conclusion. I deal in facts, not wishes.

And I don't vote to pick the winner. It's silly to use my vote as if I were betting on a sporting event. It doesn't matter to me which liar wins- they are equally bad.

Like I said before - every four years it's the same old thing - blah blah blah blah blah - you must vote for the liar with an (R) after his name or Satan (D) will win and the world will end. 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 - I heard the exact same arguments. When will the pro-life rubes stop falling for this nonsense? Please remember these discussions in four years, and see if anything has changed. I hope that your man wins, if only so that in four years you can see that abortion will still be legal, Planned Parenthood will still be federally funded, the Supreme Court will still be majority pro-abortion (regardless of how many justices your man gets to appoint - he could appoint all 9 and we would still not have a pro-life majority on the Court) and we will be having this same discussion (assuming your man hasn't started World War III and we're still here).

mark said...

There still seems to be the assumption that the default vote for a Catholic is Republican, and that if I weren't voting for Virgil Goode I would be voting for Romney.

Let me make myself clear - if I weren't voting for Virgil Goode, I would be staying home. So, I am not "robbing" votes from anyone. My vote counts as one vote for Virgil Goode; it does not count as a vote for Obama, and it does not subtract from Romney's total.

fidelityandaction said...

OMG! Seniors will suffer as much as preborn babies from Obamacare! My husband and I are extremely concerned about Obamacare. Have mercy on seniors too!

Restore-DC-Catholicism said...

As promised yesterday, I posted an answer on my own blog. See

RecoveringFeminist said...

I refuse to betray the Catholic Church and sell my vote for 30 pieces of silver. Mark is absolutely correct in his statements. I know nothing about Goode, but we will be voting either third-party or writing in God. I have noticed a chilling similarity between the rhetoric of the pro-deathers and the rhetoric of those who commit possible calumny/slander/detraction by claiming that those of us who do not vote for Romney is the same as voting for Obama. There is no discernible difference between Obama and Romney--none. A person could argue that Obama is more “principled” because he’s “honest” about his evil desires. Romney has flip-flopped with children’s lives continuing to be snuffed out. I wonder how many of us would be so flippant about the nameless children being murdered if it were our lives being snuffed out by abortion? Would we be so willing to accept that type of murder if the abortionist were coming for us? Would we be accepting of “some” Jews murdered in the Holocaust? Would we be so accepting of a candidate that is for “some” racism or slavery, as Alan Keyes has so aptly observed? With our votes going third-party or write-in, at least the GOP will know there are two votes that they should have had and didn't receive. We are boycotting the GOP until they give us a candidate that won't violate our well-formed consciences. Viva Christo Rey!
The Lesser of Two Evils is Still Evil:

"... So we choose the lesser evil, thinking we have been saved from the great evil, when all the while satan's real purpose was to bring about the evil we have chosen... ." "The Father's Tale", Michael O'Brien

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

I have to take issue with you, Recovering Feminist, because you are doing the same thing to those who disagree with you as you accuse them of doing to you. I think your position is legitimate, but I don't think those who vote for Romney because they think he will do less harm than Obama are selling out for "thirty pieces of silver." Is it cavalier to believe that we should do what we can to save the babies we can? It's true that Romney is awful on the pro-life issue, but if he reinstates the Mexico City policy as he has said, babies in the third world will be saved. Should I accuse you of being "cavalier" for writing off those little ones?

We all have to do the best we can to inform our consciences and then vote accordingly. I have debated both sides of this issue and have voted on both sides of this issue in the past. But my sense of Obama is that he is so evil we need to do whatever we can to stop him. Romney is a poor roadblock to the Obama agenda, but he is a roadblock.

I continue to pray about my vote, but from a moral standpoint, after reading many moral theologians I believe voting for Romney is a legitimate act. I respect your right to disagree, but I think in justice you should respect mine.

Here is what Pope John Paul II said in the Gospel of Life:
"A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. ... In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects. [Gospel of Life 73]"

RecoveringFeminist said...

Clarification: I said I would not sell MY vote for 30 pieces of silver. What you think of your own vote is based on free will and a well-formed conscience.

I refer to your own post of 2009, which was correct:

Vote for Constitutional Conservatives. Don't vote for the lesser of two evils because he (or she) is still evil and the evil you don't know may turn out to be more evil than the evil you know. Never vote party just for party's sake. The Democrats are principled, but most of their principles are evil. They sure stick by them though. The Republicans have principles on paper, but never let their priniciples interfere with what happens to be expedient. Support candidates who stand for life, traditional marriage, fiscal restraint, and limited government. If they don't stand for conservatism don't support them. Better to turn in a blank ballot or write in your own name. You don't "waste your vote" by supporting a third party candidate. You waste your vote when you let them convince you that lukewarm liberal light is better than full-bodied liberal. It's a lie. When liberal expose their evil, they generate resistance. Would we really be better off if liberal John McCain had won? Would he have invigorated conservatism the way the Obama Marxists have? …

And then you said in this post:

“…However, Catholics who vote for third party candidates or abstain from voting when they live in states where the outcome is close could contribute to an Obama win. …”

Understanding it could be a mortal sin to vote for Obama, with the three prerequisites, by implying that a person who votes third party or write in “could contribute to an Obama win…”, a person could interpret the above as saying that those who don’t vote for Romney could contribute to an Obama win. That could possibly be calumny/detraction/slander. As a 100% pro-life person, anyone overhearing that my vote was contributing to a vote for Obama could be harmful to my reputation.

For further clarification on Evangelium Vitae, you need only go to the American Life League for a clearer understanding of that particular quote by Pope John Paul II:

“…when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and morality. ...

In the interests of full disclosure, neither Democrat nor Republican candidate for President has an "absolute personal opposition to procured abortion." They are the same as far as their implementation of pro-death/pro-sodomy/Marxist/Communist/Socialism legislation is concerned.
Compromise--Judie Brown, American Life League--Evangelium Vitae

Mary Ann Kreitzer said...

How much is one life worth? If you have three babies in front of you and one candidate will kill them all and the other will kill two, is it not legitimate to save the one that you can save?

I haven't voted party for years. Even when I was a Republican precinct chairman, I refused to pass out literature for John Warner, Tom Davis, and other pro-abortion candidates. For several years I set up a pro-life table at the polls with the fetal models and pro-life literature. I was threatened with arrest for that until the ACLJ got involved.

Each of us has to do the best we can with our vote. I think Barack Obama is so evil I need to do what I can to stop him. And casting a third party vote CAN contribute to an Obama win. If he wins by 300 votes and 300 who would NEVER vote for Obama voted third party how can that NOT help him? That is not the same as saying those 300 people committed a sin by voting third party. So please don't put words in my mouth and accuse me of calumny. You follow your conscience and I'll follow mine.

I dislike Romney, but I have never believed so strongly that we were facing a total tyrant as with Obama. His use of executive orders, his czars, his abortion/infanticide extremism all convince me to vote against him. And he is certainly not out front with his evil. Every time he opens his mouth it's another lie. "God bless America" from the man who attended the "God damn America" church for twenty years? There isn't a speck of honesty in the man but he plays the game very well.

mark said...

Mary Ann,

I think if you do some more research on the so-called "Mexico City policy" you will find that it has such big loopholes that it is meaningless. It's another one of those crumbs that the Republican party throws to the pro-life rubes to continue to get their votes.

If you truly believe that Romney would be better than Obama, than by all means vote for him. I have come to a different conclusion, and will not be voting for him. I completely respect your decision, and I imagine you respect mine also.

However, I have a serious problem with people like Restore-DC-Catholicism, who states on his blog that one is sinning by not voting for Romney. And Theranter, above, who says that I am complicit in forced abortion by not voting for Romney. The absurdity of those statements is beyond comprehension.