Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Worst campaign slogan ever

I didn't watch the debate tonight.  Feel free to talk about it in the comment box if you did watch it and want to talk about it.

What I did see tonight was this:
NEW YORK (AP) — Mitt Romney's campaign has released a new TV ad suggesting the Republican hopeful believes abortion "should be an option" in certain cases.

The ad features a woman saying she'd heard Romney's position on abortion and birth control "seemed a bit extreme." She says she'd learned Romney doesn't oppose contraception and believes abortion should be available in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at stake.
Tell me again why a vote for this man is a vote for the sanctity of life.  Tell me again why Mitt Romney is the clear choice for Catholic voters.  Because "Mitt Romney: he only hates some of your pro-life Catholic values!" is the worst campaign slogan ever, as far as I'm concerned.


John Henry said...

Yeah, during the debate, he fell all over himself trying to show how strongly he favored employer-funded contraception too.

Mack Hall, HSG said...

I suppose of kindness we might make a weak defense of Governor Romney in that we don't know how he was taught in his faith and in his home; even so, he's quite grown up now, and should know better. He should listen to Paul Ryan in the matter.

"The candidate LEAST like Moloch" shouldn't be a persuasive point.

Tony said...

I'll try, Erin, but I don't think it will get through. You seem too interested in feeling "holy" than doing what's best for the babies.

When our Constitution was debated, many of the early abolitionists wanted slavery to be prohibited in the Constitution. Mostly, these were northern states with no economic interest in slaves.

Slavery was as divisive an issue as abortion is today, dividing the country. The anti-slavery states decided not to make slavery an issue so they could form a country. If they hadn't, we might still have slave states, and we wouldn't be united.

Mitt's statement regarding rape and incest tastes bad in my mouth. I don't believe an innocent baby should be killed for the sins of her father. But I'm willing to concede this point to possibly save 97% of the babies who were not conceived via rape or incest and don't endanger the life of the mother.

Once we win that battle, we can concentrate on the remaining 3%

If I vote for a third party candidate who can't win, or write in somebody to make myself feel superior, Obama might win, and then no extra babies will be saved, possibly many more might be killed.

Hope that helped.

Rebecca in ID said...

A vote for Romney is not a vote "for the sanctity of life", but I don't get why the choice isn't clear given the alternative. The legality of contraception or abortion in the case of life of the mother is not going to be an issue before us in the next four or eight years. However, the Mexico City policy, the funding of PP, and the pressing of legislation such as fetal pain laws *are* a relevant and very much alive topic right now, and it is those that will be addressed. Availability of contraception is not going to come up in a bill; forcing employees to pay for it *is* here and *will* be addressed one way or the other. A vote for Romney is not a vote for the sanctity of life, but many thousands of lives will be spared if he defeats Obama. Meanwhile we need to work towards promoting more consistently principled candidates in between elections. There is a lot of confusion about moral principles out there, even Ronald Reagan pioneered no-fault divorce in CA which all over the country has led to great evils...nevertheless I would vote for him any day over someone like Obama who positively worships abortion and promotes and expands it in every way possible.

Liz said...

I feel really sorry for voters in states where their vote really matters. Here in Vermont, how I vote is not going to make a bit of difference in how the state as a whole goes. I can tell you that my town, and my county will go strongly for Romney, but that won't make any difference either because the Democratic sections of the state simply have a much higher population (including Burlington where our state university has thousands of students registered to vote---more voters than in my entire town). So I can truly vote my conscience---which means voting for neither candidate. I don't have to hold my nose and vote for Romney because doing so won't make a difference. I don't have to pretend that Obama represents certain Catholic values, because there are so many people who will already vote for him that my vote would be meaningless anyway. The candidates haven't put on more than a token campaign here. They know that Vermont is a lock for Obama. What I won't do is give either candidate a vote that says I support you because I really and truly can't support either. In my family there are going to be a lot of neither votes, but I think I'm probably the only one less scared of Romney than Obama. The general consensus is better the devil that you know... However, it's not enough to make any of us vote for either of them. I'm honestly not sure what I'd do if I lived in a place like Ohio where the race is actually close. I continue to believe that neither candidate actually reflects my values, or even how I think this country should be operating. I guess it would depend on just how scared I am of a second Obama term versus the possibility of eight years of Mitch Romney.

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

Erin, if you seriously expect a devout Mormon to follow Catholic principles, then you really have been sniffing the vapors too much.

John Parker said...

Tony is right on this, as was Zmirak.

First of all, if you read about the background, Romney's public change of heart on abortion is obviously much more genuine than his other flips.

Second, all that matters is him appointing anti-Roe justices. There's really not much else he can do under the current framework, and obviously a Constitutional amendment cannot pass with the amount of Democrats (+ the vestige of northeastern Republicans) in Congress. Obama obviously won't nominate such justices, but Romney will, and if he pulls a Harriet Miers conservatives can hold his feet to the fire like they did with Bush. You've mentioned Nixon/Reagan appointees turning out pro-Roe before but the pre-1980 Republican Party was not solidly pro-life, and Reagan obviously would've admitted he erred in placing such a priority on nominating a female justice that he possibly overlooked her views (though I don't know if they were known or she had a public position at the time -- and on a related note, any anti-Roe nominee these days has to avoid disclosing it or they'll get Borked.)

I know, "excuses." Romney could pull a Lucy with the football and nominate another Souter Bush-41 style. I can't predict the future, but I do agree with Zmirak that people in a swing state sitting it out for purer-than-thou reasons effectively helps the guy who's definitely not gonna do anything about it, vs. the guy who likely will with the Court.