As a candidate for the highest office in the country, the thought of “not being concerned about the very poor” as a misstatement or an actual philosophy is troubling. While the current occupant of the White House has not done all that many believe is needed for the poor, unemployed and underemployed – he has not been foolish or so out of touch that he actually proclaims this as his goal. Every citizen of this country is entitled to representation by our elected officials – not only the very poor, the middle class or the very rich. Each of us matters.

Romney has done more for the very poor (in terms of devoting his time and money) than Obama. In one year along, Romney has donate more money than Obama has in his entire life.

hmj, if the level of charitable contributions is your test, did you vote for John Kerry over George Bush in 2004? All people, including Romney, should be commended for their charitable contributions. But charitable contributions hardly make up for policies or the lack of policies that address the poor. I also think that you're making an assumption that all charitable contributions are directed at the "very poor."

Here is an article on Romney's charitable contributions: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2012/0124/Mitt-Romney-taxes-show-very-high-charitable-giving-tied-to-Mormon-church

The majority appears to have gone to the Mormon church. Here are some other recipients: the Friends of George W. Bush Library, Center for Treatment of Pediatric MS, US Equestrian Team Foundation, Harvard Business School, Homes for Our Troops, Heritage Foundation, Becket Fund (for religious rights legal aid), Federalist Society and Citizens for Limited Taxation.

Joe -- I was responding to those that would paint Romney as a person that has does nothing for the poor or a person that would eliminate programs that help the poor. To my knowledge John Kerry was not painted in such a manner. He and his wife's billions have done a great deal for the poor.

I agree that women have the right to birth control. However as a church or religous instituion they should have the right to not partially fund access to something that goes against their belief structure.

Using your Georgetown University analogy, as a catholic institution this may mean they deny the coverage for vasectomies. Certainly a attack on men!

A potential employ has the right to not work their if they disagree with the religous philosphy of the institution. They could go work for Howard University, American University, UDC, UMD or any of the Universities in the area.

Where does this go from here. The next logical step would be to force Georgetown University Hospital to perform abortions.

The founding fathers believed in a seperation of church and state for a reason, we should honor that.

O'Donnell is a far left loon, but he does have a following of student stooges and Beavis and Butt-head clones. Obama and other liberal Dems in Congress pushed the liberal lending practices that caused the mortgage meltdown / near collapse of our economy. Only appropriate that as President he should confront the nigthmare that he helped create. Time for new leadership. Don't be duped again.

I can't believe it every time I hear the housing crash blamed on liberal Dems in congress. If we believe for a second that that was true, don't you think the banks in the period of 2000 to 2008 would be shouting out to the world that the Dems policies were killing them and that the economy is going to to melt down? That wasn't happening, was it? And do you think we would have had the huge settlement today with five major banks if the problem was caused by the Dems in congress? And does anyone recall what Alan Greenspan said when he testified in Congress after the meltdown? Alan Greenspan told Congress that he had always been a free-market thinker, but a main tenet of free-market thinking is that a company would not do the business equivalent of committing suicide. But that is exactly what the large Wall Street firms did that required the bailout. That is the same Alan Greenspan that was appointed to be Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve by President Reagan. George Bush didn't even blame it on the Dems. George Bush said, "Wall Street got drunk." But hmj on Bowie Patch apparently knows more about what happened than both George Bush and Alan Greenspan.

I wonder what the founding fathers would have thought if they knew that religious institutions would grow into multi-million dollar enterprises employing tens of thousands of people, including people that were of different faiths. I wonder what they would have thought if they knew that many people had no access to health care. I wonder what they would have thought if they knew that health care would become so expensive that you couldn't just bake the local doctor a few meals or give him some fresh milk from your cow to pay for his services. But I have a feeling I know what they would think if you told them that there was a product available that would keep a sexual partner from getting pregnant 99.5% of the time.

Rick Hudson: As I said, the choice is clear. Don't accept federal money. There are a great many laws that institutions have to follow even though they may be at odds with religious practice because they operate in the public sphere -- like a hospital or a university. Just because your institution is headed up by religious nuts doesn't mean you can discriminate. 28 states have rules in place similar to the mandate. Women who currently work at Catholic hospitals have birth control coverage. Why the belated outrage?

Not that I'd expect you to understand, given your absurd vasectomy analogy but oral contraceptives are quite often prescribed for health reasons. More than half of all pill users use them for reasons other than pregnancy prevention. This is a women's health issue.

And as an aside, this is 2012. We are fighting over birth control?? There are still people out there who object to birth control?

hmj, it's interesting that you should single out Obama and Clinton. It makes you come off more as a partisan than somebody that is truly concerned about the issue. I've heard arguments on both sides of this issue. If a U.S. company needs a scientist, it is far better to have someone working in the U.S. on a visa than to have the same person working for the company overseas. And you're right. It would be better if the U.S. company hired a scientist right here at home. But the job creators spend millions lobbying both political parties to have more visas issued. If Obama or Clinton restricted the visas, they would be labeled as "anti business." If they allow the visas, they are labeled as "anti American." It sounds like a no-win situation. And like most political situations, the narrative is clouded by the millions of dollars spent by lobbyist to influence politicians.

Joe --- Secretary of State Clinton and the President continue to allow the practice in the face of record high unemployment. Why? Yes,business leaders want them, but why? You need to probe deeper and ask why our US colleges and universities cannot meet the need. In the end, you will find an agenda that is not helping American citizens.

hmj, If the root cause is a failure of the education system that is causing business leaders to look outside the U.S. to fill some of their positions, why did you take Obama to task for allowing the visas? It sounds like you agree that the visas are the best short term solution for helping businesses in the U.S., unless I read you wrong?