Romney: Cross-Party Voting “Disgusting” . . . Except When I Do It

The Michigan primary is over and Romney and Santorum essentially tied for first with an equal number of delegates. However, it took some lowbrow political tactics from Romney to even squeak by with a virtual tie:

Jon Stewart: Indecision 2012 – Mitt Romney’s & Rick Santorum’s Michigan Campaigns

I’m against the kind of sabotaging of America’s political process that Romney so gleefully supported in the past (unless someone else is doing it – then its “disgusting”). However, for a candidate to ask voters of another party to vote for him in an open primary in no way constitutes sabotage. Americans aren’t granted their voting rights according to which party they belong to and should be allowed to vote for whomever they want- regardless of party affiliation. For that reason, I like open primaries and I think Santorum’s methods were perfectly reasonable. I do take umbrage at the Democrat robo-calls that urged Democrats to vote for Santorum in order to “continue the Republican clown show” as that does constitute sabotage and is a disgrace to our democratic process.

Romney, however, demeans the political process when #1 he flip-flops according to where the political winds blow and #2 calls cross-voting “disgusting” as if he were talking about inbreeding or something. Democrats and Republicans mingling? Disgusting!

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Romney: Cross-Party Voting “Disgusting” . . . Except When I Do It

  1. While you are challenging how good a Catholic Santorum is do you know that Paul supports the morning after pill and stated in the last debate that it is just another form of contraception? As a doctor he should know better. Just saying.

    • Unfortunately, Ron Paul hasn’t fleshed out an in-depth answer on this but here’s what I have been able to find:

      “So if we are ever to have fewer abortions, society must change again. The law will not accomplish that. However, that does not mean that the states shouldn’t be allowed to write laws dealing with abortion. Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her own moral choice.”

      I think this statement is open to a wide range of interpretations including the one you present and that is disturbing considering that Ron Paul is so outspoken in favor of the pro-life cause. However, in keeping with the law of Occam’s razor and choosing an interpretation with the least number of assumptions, I would argue that Ron Paul’s above statement remains consistent with his other views. While life begins at conception, a fact Ron Paul readily recognizes, it is impossible to prove that pregnancy has occurred until implantation and therefore impossible to enforce a law banning abortions that take place prior to implantation. A law that can never be enforced is a bad law and, keeping with Ron Paul’s minimal approach to government, should not exist.

      Also, note that the USCCB allows contraceptive use in an emergency room setting for rape victims:

      “A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum”.

      This includes contraceptives with a possible abortifacient effect as long as contraception and not abortion is its intent and moral certitude that ovulation has not occurred is established.

      In summary, I think Ron Paul’s intent is to avoid federal intervention on an issue that cannot be feasibly policed not to endorse the morning-after-pill. Although regrettably his statements on this issue are poorly worded and therefore ambiguous and open to misinterpretation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s