Gingrich: John Bolton will be my secretary of state

[estesbob]

Having been at the center of it all at the time, yes I’m aware of the hanging chads and the butterfly ballots, votes for Pat Buchanan, and all of it. It is interesting the SC voted along party lines though. Had there been one less conservative on the Court and one more liberal, I wonder if the ruling would have been differently as to what was upheld or not. But no matter. For better or worse we are through that chapter of America history. I just pray in 2012 we don’t have the same result occur with Gingrich and Bolton vs Obama.

It was a 7-2 vote so the change of one votre would not have mattered.

 

[stanczyk]

That would be helpful since so far the sum total of complaints against him is that he is a neocon warmonger

As if that isn’t reason enough for any Catholic to be repelled by Bolton. But that isn’t the reason I’m opposed to him. It’s much simpler than that. He’s a terrible diplomat. He’s proven that he has no notion of diplomacy. He’d make a catastrophic secretary of state.

 

[estesbob]

As if that isn’t reason enough for any Catholic to be repelled by Bolton. But that isn’t the reason I’m opposed to him. It’s much simpler than that. He’s a terrible diplomat. He’s proven that he has no notion of diplomacy. He’d make a catastrophic secretary of state.

Again no details-just your opinion.

 

[ishii]

That would be helpful since so far the sum total of complaints against him is that he is a neocon warmonger

That is all the left ever has : smear tactics and name calling. They called Reagan a warmonger and he helped end the Cold War. They say of Bolton, " he’s a neo-con" which is the same as saying “he’s a (gasp) Jew!” Then they say he’s similar to the Nazis in the 1930’s. Of course, Bolton is nothing of the sort. As he says, he’s always been a conservative - supporting Goldwater as a youth in 1964. He is blunt and abrasive at times. But sometimes you have to stand up for what is right and tell it like it is.

Ishii

 

[stanczyk]

Again no details-just your opinion.

I already posted the economist article above to emphasize my point that Bolton’s a terrible diplomat. It doesn’t take anything more than a bit of common sense to see how such a dreadful diplomat would make a terrible secretary of state. The secretary of state must be a consummate diplomat.

Estesbob, I realize political discussions can get heated but your rudeness is really uncalled for. I’ve provided ample details to support my position. In the end, all anybody here is talking about is opinion.

 

[stanczyk]

They called Reagan a warmonger and he helped end the Cold War. They say of Bolton, " he’s a neo-con" which is the same as saying “he’s a (gasp) Jew!”

Bolton’s a Lutheran, actually. Not that his religion should matter.

 

[CMatt25]

It was a 7-2 vote so the change of one votre would not have mattered.

I’ll just make this correction as to the SCOTUS vote and then I have no more to say about 2000 here. Other than again to pray it does not happen in a Gingrich/Bolton vs Obama scenario.

"The U.S. Supreme Court justices, too, were narrowly divided, 5-4. The five justices voting in favor of the stay were the same five conservatives who had been moving the Rehnquist Court to the right for more than a decade. The first hearing of Bush v. Gore telegraphed to the nation what would happen if the Court took further action in the case.

The Court’s third and final intervention in the 2000 presidential election came just days later. In its unsigned opinion, the Court explained that it had voted 5-4 to put a stop to the Florida recount. Allowing the recount to go forward, the Court said, would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back down to the Florida Supreme Court, which had no alternative but to dismiss it. The presidential election of 2000 had been decided, in essence, by the vote of one Supreme Court justice."

dummies.com/how-to/content/supreme-court-case-study-bush-v-gore.html

 

[stanczyk]

I’ll just make this correction as to the SCOTUS vote and then I have no more to say about 2000 here. Other than again to pray it does not happen in a Gingrich/Bolton vs Obama scenario.

Good point, I didn’t notice that earlier or I would have corrected it myself. Bush v. Gore is infamous for being along party lines. Even the Supreme Court basically acknowledged the partisan nature of the decision when they wrote into the opinion that it was not to be used as precedent for any future cases (which was itself an unprecedented move).

 

[ishii]

Bolton’s a Lutheran, actually. Not that his religion should matter.

Good, so you agree that its wrong to call him a “neo-con” . And that to smear him with derogatory labels really lowers the discussion… like some of the posters saying things like this: “*When I think of Bolton, the war-eager, paranoid leaders of Germany in the '30s come to mind.” *

Would you not agree that calling Bolton a Nazi actually hurts your position?

Ishii

 

[stanczyk]

Good, so you agree that its wrong to call him a “neo-con” . And that to smear him with derogatory labels really lowers the discussion… like some of the posters saying things like this: “*When I think of Bolton, the war-eager, paranoid leaders of Germany in the '30s come to mind.” *

Would you not agree that calling Bolton a Nazi actually hurts your position?

Ishii

Ishii, I think you’re mixing me up with another poster. In any case, you could probably stand to chill out a little bit, take some deep breaths, and relax. I’ll say a prayer for you. God bless

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Ishii, I think you’re mixing me up with another poster. In any case, you could probably stand to chill out a little bit, take some deep breaths, and relax. I’ll say a prayer for you. God bless

We can relax after President Obama is defeated in November 2012.

Let Mr. Obama and his czars chill out.

 

[stanczyk]

We can relax after President Obama is defeated in November 2012.

Let Mr. Obama and his czars chill out.

Well, if Gingrich gets the nomination, we can all look forward to another four years of Obama.

So I’ll chill out once Mitt Romney, the only electable candidate, gets the nomination.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Well, if Gingrich gets the nomination, we can all look forward to another four years of Obama.

So I’ll chill out once the electable Mitt Romney gets the nomination.

The ONLY way Obama can win is if someone starts a third party.

 

[rlg94086]

Well, if Gingrich gets the nomination, we can all look forward to another four years of Obama.

So I’ll chill out once the electable Mitt Romney gets the nomination.

I’m starting to see it that way too. I’ve generally been holding off my decision of who to vote for in the primary, but the more I look at it, Romney is probably the best choice.

 

[mary_bobo]

So does Mitt Romney. In fact, he is a Life Member.

(Of course, he didn’t join until 2006)

So am I. What difference does it make when you became a Life Member?

 

[stanczyk]

The ONLY way Obama can win is if someone starts a third party.

That’s just not true. The center-candidate always wins, it’s just a matter of history. If Gingrich gets the nom, that puts extreme-right Gingrich against an Obama who will seem like a centrist by comparison.

Romney on the other had, is far more centrist, especially compared to Obama. Romney is good on the economy (the paramount issue of this election), and he is just so much more likeable than either Gingrich or Obama.

You’re forgetting that general elections are won and lost by appealing to independents, not the party base. You have to look at this dispassionate, put aside your dislike of Obama and see the political landscape for what it truly is.

 

[rlg94086]

That’s just not true. The center-candidate always wins, it’s just a matter of history. If Gingrich gets the nom, that puts extreme-right Gingrich against an Obama who will seem like a centrist by comparison.

Romney on the other had, is far more centrist, especially compared to Obama. Romney is good on the economy (the paramount issue of this election), and he is just so much more likeable than either Gingrich or Obama.

You’re forgetting that general elections are won and lost by appealing to independents, not the party base. You have to look at this dispassionate, put aside your dislike of Obama and see the political landscape for what it truly is.

 

[stanczyk]

I’m starting to see it that way too. I’ve generally been holding off my decision of who to vote for in the primary, but the more I look at it, Romney is probably the best choice.

Well I really wish there had been a better crop of candidates all around. I do have a lot of confidence in Romney on the economy, and I am sure that he will appoint good Justices when it comes to life-issues. So these are the big issues in my book.

Anyway, I’m glad to see we do agree on some things, rlg

 

[rlg94086]

Well I really wish there had been a better crop of candidates all around. I do have a lot of confidence in Romney on the economy, and I am sure that he will appoint good Justices when it comes to life-issues. So these are the big issues in my book.

Anyway, I’m glad to see we do agree on some things, rlg

I’m sure we agree on a lot of things. We both oppose the death penalty, for example. I’m assuming you believe in following Church teaching on all life issues. Why wouldn’t we agree a lot?

 

[stanczyk]

I’m sure we agree on a lot of things. We both oppose the death penalty, for example. I’m assuming you believe in following Church teaching on all life issues. Why wouldn’t we agree a lot?

Yes indeed. Setting aside the economy, the most important issue to me is to ensure pro-life Justices on the Supreme Court. Scalia and Thomas aren’t getting any younger, and neither is Kennedy for that matter. The next four to eight years are going pretty important in terms of court composition.

I’m very glad to hear we’re on the same page.