Glendon is desperate to assist the Church, but makes a general comment with absolutely no teeth, meat, or detail of Romney’s offers or efforts. Might she explain exactly the lengths he went to in order to defend the Church and religious liberty, beyond playing habitually to all sides, both sides, no sides, depending on the venue he arranges for the sake of his various needs for appearances?
Romney met and klatched on coffee with a Catholic or two, but never bothered to drill the opponents of the Church with the US Constitution First Ammendment speech rights, and the constitutional religious liberty rights as deemed in the Constitution of the United States of America, and which in all cases take PRECEDENCE over the usuping of both speech rights and religious liberty as suggested by some state’s legislation. Yes, we are all FOR states rights without question, until they interfere clearly and publically with speech and liberty.
Perhaps you could excuse that, explain that, defend that on Romney’s behalf of course. Why the Constitution of the United States of America was not invoked by Romney to bring relief to the Catholic Church missions and faith doctrines in Massachusetts.
His endless prattling of his various and vacuous poses in equally vacuous discussions with the Archdiocese are one of several sides of his mouth and actions, as his scalded dog skidaddle from the speech and liberty intimidation of Chick fil A. He again ducked a perfect opportunity to throw a bone to conservatives who are alarmed by his utter disinterest.
Either Obama or Romney will be our next President..
I choose Romney