Obama is the Best Candidate - Final Reflections on an Endorsement Well Considered (By Douglas Kmiec)

I'm glad you feel the way you do.
However, I'm writting in Dr. & Senator Ron Paul.
It's too bad he did not win the primaries.
I feel he's the only hope America has left to save 'us' from fascism!

Taxpayer funded abortions is an odd way to reduce abortions. No one would buy the argument that by allowing Slavery, the Constitution is anti-slavery. No on ewould argue that MLK should have been personally opposed to segregations but unwilling to impose those beliefs on others. No one would argue that arson is "tragic," but that we should remove all legal limits on it and fund it with taxpayer dollars. The fact that women facing an unexpected pregnancy are in a very difficult position does not change the nature of abortion. The fact that we should have compassion for them and help them does not change what abortion is. Killing innocent people is not okay, ever, even if we can come up with creative ways of making it help us feel better about ourselves.

Obama has managed an organization with hundreds of offices, thousands of employees, thousands of volunteers and did it better than any of his competition while also innovating in terms of messaging and the exploitation of the internet. Can't wait to see how he manages our government.

I was under the impression that All Souls' Day was the day that we prayed for the souls suffering in purgatory, not a day that we "remembered the souls that have walked the earth."

I, as many others, do not believe this election is based merely on one issue - there are several. Yes, I believe that once an egg is fertilized it is a human being and to kill that person is murder - regardless of the circumstances. There are still many couples in this country who are childless and would be thrilled to give a child a home with love, kindness and all of the "things" the apparent murderers have not considered because for whatever reason they are selfish. Abortion should not be a means of birth control - however, it is for many. Another issue is the "gay marriage" issue. Yes, we live in a country where everyone is to be entitled to their "rights", BUT our country was founded by God loving and God fearing men. That same God tells us in the Bible that having sexual relations with members of the same sex is an abomination to God. Yes, we are to love the person, but not the sinner. To stand for marriage as a union between two people versus "a union between one man and one woman" is not going to bring forth God's blessings. There is a scripture that says we are not to be conformed to this world, but transformed by the renewing of our minds. We are to be an example to those who don't know Jesus as their Lord & Savior. What kind of "light" can "shine in the darkness" when it is allowing the dark to smother it? Being disobedient to the laws of God is being rebellious and I'm sure everyone knows where rebellion eventually leads if you stay on that path.

Sorry - a long post!

Thoughtful? Carefully reasoned? Compassionate? Yes, all of these, as Ms. Weems stated above. Therefore, it is truly amazing that Mr. Kmiec comes to such an illogical and unsubstantiated conclusion. He clearly demonstrates that he does not understand our political system and structure and it currently exists. First, politics is the business of a lot of things. However, one of those things politics is NOT is telling the truth (or the whole truth) and one of the things it IS is pandering. It is the rare candidate running for elective office, from any party, which will speak the truth and will not pander to the electorate. Thus, the intelligent and thoughtful elector should (or must) look at history and make a decision much more “from the record” and less from that which is said on the campaign trail. Second, party trumps the person in our political system. This is a fact, and not a pleasant one, at that! When you vote for a candidate in a partisan election, you are also selecting (by voting for) the partisan ideas, goals and objectives that are associated with the party that the candidate is aligned with. Because our political system has devolved over the last few decades into a partisan two party system (emphasis on partisan), the ability of the individual politician to break from his or her “party line” in a meaningful and consistent way is limited and fraught with political danger, at least at the Federal and State levels (examples – Joe Biden, Ron Paul). This is why a knowledge and understanding of party platforms (not just talking points) is so important. The platforms tell you about those ideas and goals. In this election, voting for the Democrat candidate for President will increase the likelihood of implementation of Democrat ideas, goals and objectives as seen, interpreted and implemented by the leadership of the House and Senate and the occupant of the White House. Conversely, voting for the Republican candidate for President will provide a modicum of restraint on implementation of Democrat ideas, goals and objectives as seen and interpreted by the leadership of the House and Senate (since it is unreasonable to assume that the number of elected officials from the Democrat party in both of these legislative bodies will do anything other than increase as a result of tomorrow’s election). The magnitude of restraint that a Republican President could provide is open to discussion. Only time would tell.

It appears that Mr. Kmiec has looked at the record and has made his choice and endorsement. That is the right of all citizens of this great country. I do not know Mr. Kmiec, but reading through his endorsement, it appears to me that his review of the record was made through very selective filters. It appears to me that he dismissed (or ignored) some very important items in the historical record Again, this is his right. An individual reading Mr. Kmiec’s document on his reflections can analyze those reflections and either agree or disagree. The fundamental problem that I have with his analysis is his use, either directly or indirectly, of his credentials as both a Catholic and a senior member of a previous conservative administration to lend credence to his positions and conclusions. His conclusions are not in logical or philosophical conformance with the tenants held by either of group for which he cites credential. As such, in my opinion, his arguments are both illogical and intellectually dishonest.

If Obama is a source of hope for many, I submit that the hope spoken of is not a Christian hope. It's a hope that, due to its cynicism about the value of the pro-life efforts of the past 35 years, has made some remarkable compromises and has put its faith in the wrong messiah.

Kmiec cannot even faithfully reproduce/interpret Chaput's conclusions.

"[Chaput] discounts reducing the incidence of abortion by cultural (economic and social) means." I don't think so. He may have discounted the soundness of Kmiec's position, but that is not the same thing.

And not even a mention of the possibility a protest vote or a vote for a third-party candidate.

Also, Kmiec refuses to examine his own commitments to some very uncertain outcomes. Who cares if the intent of FOCA is to reduce abortion? Is there any reason to believe that the intent translates into fact? Good intentions do not turn evil acts into good ones. And overturning Roe v Wade -- thus turning the decision over to the state level -- saves NO lives? Where does this remarkable belief even touch tangentially the reality of the situation?

Kmiec planted his flag in the Obama soil long ago, and he has too much invested to remain intellectually honest about his commitments... which is both a shame for him personally, and a scandal for his fellow Catholics across this country. His conscience may be well-defended, but I'm not convinced that it is well-informed.