I think Romney hit the nail on the head in his speech yesterday.  He's not running as a Mormon, but as an American.  A good Catholic politician should also be running as an American.  True American principles do not contradict true Catholic teaching, but reflect it. 

 On the issue of pro-lifeyness, the question is one of practicality.  Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned today, few (if any) states will pass a 100% ban on abortion.  Chances are, the ban will allow the usual exceptions of rape, incest, life of the mother, etc..  Is it not practical to vote for a non-viable candidate in the General Election.  The non-viable 100% pro-life candidate will not win.  If you remove the option of voting the third party, the of course the answer is to vote for the person who is more pro-life (or less pro-abortion).

In the Primary Election, I think it is still a good idea to vote for a viable candidate, for the same reasons as in the General Election.  We don’t want a pro-abortion candidate like Rudy to win the nomination. 

The issue of Mitt Romney’s flip-flopping is not of the same context as John Kerry.  Mitt Romney has given reasons based on intellect as to why he moved from liberal opinion to conservative views on several issues.  Most (if not all) liberals simply move for the sake of positioning.  Their answers all depend on the audience.  Hillary Clinton made that mistake with illegal immigrants and driver’s licenses. 

Huckabee is strong only in Iowa.  It seems as though his status as a preacher has found favor among Protestants looking for a pope.  The Huckabee supporters seem to treat him as though he is a combination of Rev. Billy Graham and Ronald Reagan.  They want a president who will be a spiritual leader. 

If only there were a none of the above option.

What about this guy Hunter?  A vote can always be a statement crying in the wilderness. 

Regards,

Old Sigma (Cradle Catholic [Latin rite] & generally inveterate amateur)

Mary Kochan for President 2008

I am Republican, and so can only vote in the Republican primary.  I am leaning toward Romney, with Huckabee or McCain as his running mate, but have not yet decided.  I tend toward candidates who have executive experience, like former governors or mayors.  Because governors or mayors are held more responsible for things than congressmen are, they tend to be more focused on getting things accomplished.  I think that while as Republicans, we of course need to nominate someone whose views are in line with our shared values, at the same time we need to choose someone who is electable nationally.  That is, he needs to also garner a fair number of Democrat votes in the general election.

Ken's run-down of the candidates:

While Tancredo is a good guy and very focused on immigration, he is otherwise a bit fuzzy and in any case, because of his strident talk on immigration, he simply is not electable.  He is a good man to work the immigration issue in Congress or in a cabinet position but frankly, Tancredo will not be president.

Ron Paul is a good man but as a fringe candidate, nobody seriously thinks he is going to be nominated. 

Giuliani's is decent, but he is not pro-life and his personal life is far too chaotic.  Nobody is going to vote for a man with so many wives.

Hunter (from CA) has not come out with anything fresh - yet.  He might surprise me however.  In any case I think would be a good running mate for whomever is nominated. 

Thompson is a very good speaker and has good balance, but like McCain, he is older and moreover, does not seem to have the energy.  I think he would be an excellent vice president.

McCain is good, but is up there in years and I think he would be a good vice president.

I always have liked Alan Keyes.  I think he is a good man, and smart and articulate but frankly, he is a bit too far away from the mainstream.  I do think however, that he could be a good running mate, or at least should be considered for any Republican president's cabinet.

Romney gave a good talk on his religion, on religion in general and its place in our society.  He is a good family man and seems to understand the issues.  In short, his Mormanisms does not bother me and I might vote for him.

Huckabee is a very good guy and also seems to have a good grasp of the issues we face.  As a former protestant preacher, he is a man of Christian principles.  He is smart, quick-witted, friendly and decent, and he might get my vote.

With the exception of Giuliani, the Republicans are pro-life, and that is a very big plus in my book.

Matt and all,

I have said it before and I will say it again. So, here it is:

You wrote:  Lastly, voting third party or "sending a message" in a General election is not good. There is no good which comes from it, only an empowering of evil. 

The only message I will be sending is to the only One who cares to hear it. 

Lord, please raise up for us someone that Loretta will find irreproachable to the corruption, who brings your universal message of love for all.

If you don't, I will give no man or woman my vote who does not regard the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, from conception to natural death, for all races, as a matter of fact and not a notion hatched in the minds of men that lived 250 years ago.

In Christ,

p.s. Does the Church not have a teaching on the lesser of two evils?

Remember, the Sun is always shining!

From the site (after only a few minutes of searching) ... I'm just not sure what to do with all this:

Ron Paul has positions on some of these issues present serious questions for the committed Catholic voter:

• Ron Paul has no problem with "domestic partnerships" between homosexuals
• Ron Paul is in favor of the decriminalization and legalization of marijuana
• Ron Paul is in favor of the decriminalization and legalization of prostitution

Also

Terri Shiavo question: Would you support legislation that would protect cognitively disabled Americans from being killed through starvation and dehydration? RP - NO

Would you prosecute white collar distributors of hard core pornography that violate our obscenity laws? RP - NO 

Would you extend broadcast indecency laws to cable networks? RP - NO

NOT on his website...his "intriguing" conspiracy-theory about the 9/11 attacks.  The website covers over it with generalizations, but these are not from the mouth of Ron Paul.

I've not known what to think of Ron Paul.  But I get the squiggly feeling that he, too, would be a "lesser" of evils.

I appreciate your reply lpioch, but I think you miss the bigger picture behind Ron Paul's platform, and that is of personal liberties. Liberties are what set us free, and as a nation, it's the job of the government to protect these liberties. It's a philosophically different view of government than we have today. Presently we look to government, and in this debate the federal government, to solve our problems. We have become accustomed to look to the state to tell us how to live. We've made issues like pornography, marriage, drugs, and life issues the responsibility of the state. Well, look what happens when we do. We have Roe v. Wade, prisons full of people who smoke pot, gays being married, and Terri Shiavo. This is what happens when we put the federal government in charge of our civil liberties. They mess them all up.

Ron Paul's position is that of a limited federal government, and that most matters should be handled by the states themselves. I favor this position much more than the current situation we're in. I think that states need to be able to decide on abortion themselves, not the federal government. I think 'domestic partnerships' should be allowed, but that 'marriage' shouldn't even be a power of the government and should be left up to the churches. I believe that states have a better way of handling drug use, seeing it as a public health issue rather than a criminal issue. And I think you cannot legalize virtue between two consenting adults, as in prostitution.

These are big issues, don't get me wrong. But rather than go down your list, I think it's more important to go after the bigger arguement, and that is of the role of government. I think when we look to government to do anything more than to protect our liberties, we invite the system to turn on ourselves. It's not long when the same government that tells us who we can and can not marry decides that it knows best about who we can and can not worship. At this point in our countries history I do not have much faith in the motives of our leaders. This kind of skepticism is healthy and it keeps us from becoming fascists. I for one, want a leader whose platform isn't based on the latest polls, or on the advice of advisers. I want a candidate who has principle and who has the same skepticism in government as I do. This candidate to me is Ron Paul.

God Bless,

NT

Here's a link that I think will address many of your issues:

I would agree with you on your sentiments, but I do not think that is a reason why we should accept the situation we're in. As our faith tells us, God makes all things new. If we are to believe that we are the Body of Christ, then we too must make things new. It is now, in Advent, that we see Jesus born as a baby, new to the world once more. This faith does not suddenly stop when I enter into politics.

The truth is, this country did start from a clean slate. These ideas aren't new. In fact, they're the oldest ideals we have. Our founding fathers had experienced the tyranny of the British and new what life without liberty was like. Their solution was the Constitution, and it was what made America a beacon of hope to the rest of the world.

My belief is that we can still be that beacon. I do not believe that all has been lost. And you're right in saying that some things need to be reversed. And the beauty is, they can be. Ron Paul isn't promising a sudden and absolute end to large federal government. He would, after all, need the cooperation of Congress to do so. But as president he would have a position to regulate certain policies and expenditures. An idealist, yes. Naive, no. I would trust myself and my country to him more than any other candidate. I pray we someday will have the chance to do so.

God Bless,
NT

Watch:

This is what hope looks like.