Republican Primaries

[ishii]

One question rattling around my mind is would McCain’s support of a particular candidate help or hurt that candidate’s rating with the Republican base?

Some conservatives never really trusted McCain because of his being a maverick and his popularity among the mainstream press. He was fairly conservative but he departed from the GOP on a few things. I suppose its possible that some conservatives would look at a candidate who received McCain’s endorsement as being of that more mainstream, inside the beltway senator type of politics - especially among the tea party types and maybe even the libertarians who don’t like McCain’s foreign policy.

Ishii

 

[mary_bobo]

I’m sorry you have such a dichotomous view of the world, that because I’m not a a fan of the GOP, I must be a liberal. On these forums of course I get called that occasionally, because simply not a far right-winger.

I’m not ashamed of anything I believe in. Unlike you, I don’t allow some institution run by demagogues and who’s sole interest is the aquisition of power (I’m describing political parties) to encapsulate my beliefs with their platforms.

Do you know the poster you responded to well enough to make that charge? Let’s keep our posts devoid of charges one cannot prove.

 

[Raskolnikov]

ishii:

You do understand that historically, those who favor a single payer, government run healthcare system have been liberal/left types? Hillary Clinton tried to get her program passed in the early 90’s and the backlash against that was partly what resulted in the overthrow of decades of Democrat dominance of congress. Its what put Newt Gingrich on the map. That is why conservatives are so uneasy about Romney because he instituted a similar type of program in Massachusetts.

I know. People who are pro-life are also more often than not conservative, but being pro-life does not make a conservative. (otherwise conservatives on CAF would accept me with open arms despite other disagreements with conservatism, but they most certainly do no, so by their definition I am not remotely conservative). I prefer to think of myself as ‘eclectic.’ One could, of course, be a conservative and support a single payer system, in my opinion. One does not have to support every single nuance of the GOP platform or disagree with every nuance of the Democratic platform to be a conservative. Or do they?

But I think Romney’s healthcare system in Massachussets was effective. He tried to reassure conservatives, evidently to no avail, by promising that he wouldn’t try to relicate it on a national scale. But overall I think he has a relatively good grasp of the healthcsre issue, and his work in Massachussets indicates his ability to make pragmatic decisions even when they fly in the face of party platform. That’s the kind of candidate I want, more pragmatism, less ideology.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Do you know the poster you responded to well enough to make that charge? Let’s keep our posts devoid of charges one cannot prove.

Does he know me well enough to make the claims he made about me?

 

[ishii]

I know. People who are pro-life are also more often than not conservative, but being pro-life does not make a conservative. (otherwise conservatives on CAF would accept me with open arms despite other disagreements with conservatism, but they most certainly do no, so by their definition I am not remotely conservative). I prefer to think of myself as ‘eclectic.’ One could, of course, be a conservative and support a single payer system, in my opinion. One does not have to support every single nuance of the GOP platform or disagree with every nuance of the Democratic platform to be a conservative. Or do they?

But I think Romney’s healthcare system in Massachussets was effective. He tried to reassure conservatives, evidently to no avail, by promising that he wouldn’t try to relicate it on a national scale. But overall I think he has a relatively good grasp of the healthcsre issue, and his work in Massachussets indicates his ability to make pragmatic decisions even when they fly in the face of party platform. That’s the kind of candidate I want, more pragmatism, less ideology.

True. Nat Hentoff is pro-life and I wouldn’t regard him as a conservative. I do notice that there are common threads among conservatives - there are a few key issues that most “conservatives” seem to agree on - abortion, taxes, gay marriage, etc. Romney’s ability to get the votes of independents (which is what I’d call you) could be a big strength for him is he gets the nomination.

Ishii

 

[Raskolnikov]

True. Nat Hentoff is pro-life and I wouldn’t regard him as a conservative. I do notice that there are common threads among conservatives - there are a few key issues that most “conservatives” seem to agree on - abortion, taxes, gay marriage, etc. Romney’s ability to get the votes of independents (which is what I’d call you) could be a big strength for him is he gets the nomination.

Ishii

Agreed. I must also admit, it’d be nice to have a GOP candidate with a nice northern midewestern accent like Romney’s instead of a dixie or Alaskan accent (I being a northeast Ohioan have a similar dialect to the Michiganians: we call it proper American English ). Midwesternerners might hear him speak and say “hey, finally a candidate who sounds like me! I like 'em!”

 

[Defender1]

Funny, those are two reasons why I find those candidates (particularly Romney) to be the most tolerable among the GOP candidates.

Palin and Bachmann? Again, my sentiment is the exact opposite. Romney for the win.

I am sorry to disagree but I dont think in the end Rom will not win . Most of the evangelicals will not vote for him and their congregations will vote the way they will .We also should look at it this way: If his judgment is off to the point of professing the Mormon faith then how would his judgement be as president ? Michelle is a female lacking the baggage Palin has She may pull ahead of Rom when it gets closer . At the end I think if we have her in front against Obama the people may vote for her .

 

[RACJ]

I am sorry to disagree but I dont think in the end Rom will not win . Most of the evangelicals will not vote for him and their congregations will vote the way they will .We also should look at it this way: If his judgment is off to the point of professing the Mormon faith then how would his judgement be as president ? Michelle is a female lacking the baggage Palin has She may pull ahead of Rom when it gets closer . At the end I think if we have her in front against Obama the people may vote for her .

Romney is a socialist and a fraud. He doesn't HATE America as BHO does, but he's no friend of individual rights and liberty. As for Palin, IMO she has no baggage whatsoever. 24,000 pages of e-mails and absolutely nothing was found, except that she a hard-working, kind, competent, couageous, successful governor and mom. The left has worked tirelessly for 2 1/2 years to destroy her and her family, and they all remain standing, *undefeated*. We would be so blessed to have Sarah Palin as our next President. Don't fall for the radical socialist Soros-engendered LIES. :tsktsk:

 

[Raskolnikov]

Romney is a socialist and a fraud. He doesn’t HATE America as BHO does, but he’s no friend of individual rights and liberty. As for Palin, IMO she has no baggage whatsoever. 24,000 pages of e-mails and absolutely nothing was found, except that she a hard-working, kind, competent, couageous, successful governor and mom. The left has worked tirelessly for 2 1/2 years to destroy her and her family, and they all remain standing, undefeated. We would be so blessed to have Sarah Palin as our next President. Don’t fall for the radical socialist Soros-engendered LIES. :tsktsk:

Romney is a socialist. That’s rich.

 

[Tsuwano]

Romney is a socialist and a fraud. He doesn’t HATE America as BHO does, but he’s no friend of individual rights and liberty. As for Palin, IMO she has no baggage whatsoever. 24,000 pages of e-mails and absolutely nothing was found, except that she a hard-working, kind, competent, couageous, successful governor and mom. The left has worked tirelessly for 2 1/2 years to destroy her and her family, and they all remain standing, undefeated. We would be so blessed to have Sarah Palin as our next President. Don’t fall for the radical socialist Soros-engendered LIES. :tsktsk:

This post reminds me why I think, deep down, Barak Obama is going to be reelected as President. First of all, it’s shrill and over the top. Many Republicans these days, like Republicans during Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency, are shrill. They can’t simply attack the President’s policy, they have to hurl personal and ideological attacks against the man. They hate the man and not his politics. Most voters see through these kinds of attacks and will avoid voting for a Republican candidate if they feel the attacks are too personal and don’t focus on issues. The second reason I think the Democrats will win the next election is because Republicans seem intent on eating their own. To label Romney a socialist is just the pinnacle of . . . well, let’s just say it isn’t wisdom. Vote for Palin or Paul if you want to, but neither one will ever be more than the individual who ruined the Republican Party’s clear chance for a victory in 2012,

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Romney is a socialist. That’s rich.

A socialist is someone who favors and advances more government control over the lives and freedoms of individuals and in doing so, they cut off the alternatives that allow people to participate in voluntary activities.

The government involvement in medicine and health is relatively recent. At least in the United States. And people did not die in the streets. We had hospitals and the most advanced treatment. And doctors took care of their patients regardless of ability to pay. But the bureaucratization of medicine and healthcare has destroyed all that. We proved that we don’t need a 2000 page law and a huge bureaucracy that enforces a onesizefitsall policy.

People CAN have voluntary associations for medical care in viable manner.

Read up on the Indiana Plan, which addresses the financial aspects.

health–savings–accounts.com/plans-in.htm

Many states AND the Federal government forbid individuals from entering into these voluntary plans. Read up on the damage that Senator Ted Kennedy RIP did during his political career.

And we have always had private charities to help people with truly massive and chronic illnesses. But the government has worked overtime to make those alternatives either difficult or impossible.

Same can be said for retirement income: read up on the Galveston Plan … at least that one.

ncpa.org/pub/ba514

investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/570629/201104291742/Chiles-Private-Accounts-Turn-30.aspx

There are many viable alternatives, and we don’t need to government to get involved. We need to government to stay away. Google “IRS Pub 590” … if you want to have your own retirement plan, you can have an IRA, but having your own plan means managing your money as your situation changes. Outside of an IRA each change means a taxable event. But if you want a tax-deferred plan, the same as a company or government pension, then you have to follow the IRA rules. And those rules are now more than 100 pages. Get Pub 590.

We are finding that the environmental laws are based on exaggeration and increasingly on outright falsehoods. Man-made global warming is beyond a hoax; it is a gigantic fraud and as more aspects of it become public, there will be punishment for at least perjury and false statements. We know that from the science AND from the East Anglia emails.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

50 threats to Liberty in Obamacare:

catholicexchange.com/2009/08/18/121230/

You would need to compare Obamacare with Romneycare

Nevertheless, the 50 discussion points are valid.

And the Republican nominee needs to understand the overall issue of Liberty and Tyranny.

Which by the way is the name of a very relevant book:

www.marklevinshow.com

So, scroll down to “Liberty and Tyranny” … it’s an important and well-written book.

marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=2056229&spid=39460

And also on that site … a link to:

cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20076136-503544.html

with the comment that … why is this man [Romney] in the lead?

 

[hazcompat]

I came on this forum here to see who everyone was leaning towards and to my discomfort I see that Ron Paul is ahead .My only question is why? Is it because of his morals ? because I can assure you that there are plenty of candidates sharing the same morals as him . WE dont need to vote for him . This country made a big mistake by voting in Obama and one of the reasons why was because we did not have a good enough candidate . Ron Paul will not do the job . Michelle would give Obama a run for his money . Her christian morals line up and she is young . Voters these days dont like older . Ron should do us all a great service and drop out . Newt would have been great but his ship seems to have sailed plus the baggage he carries with him .Lets just a all think before hitting the booth . We pick another much older man then we mine as well prepare for another 4 years of Obama . Sorry guys but its the truth .

Does Michele believe the pope is the antichrist?

peace

 

[Monte_RCMS]

This from another thread … and is useful in evaluating certain Republican candidates and their attitudes toward government and the role of government:

Originally Posted by gilliam
We don’t have a parliamentary system in the USA. Canada and the UK have those.
A parliamentary system is a system of government in which the ministers of the executive branch get their democratic legitimacy from the legislature and are accountable to that body, such that the executive and legislative branches are intertwined.

We have a Constitution-based federal republic :
A state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (i.e., states) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives. The sovereign power of the people is spelled out in a governing constitution. We have three coequal branches: Legislative, Judicial and Executive. They check and balance each other.

There are also links, so visit post #68 here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8063719#post8063719

 

[Teen4Christ]

I’m hoping for Bachmann…she’s unelectable at a national level and would promise us democrats four more years.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I’m hoping for Bachmann…she’s unelectable at a national level and would promise us democrats four more years.

Uggg. where did they put the vomit smiley?

 

[Defender1]

Does Michele believe the pope is the antichrist?

peace

I have not looked into that . I imagine she does not , if you have any quotes from her be sure to let me know .

 

[estesbob]

Romney is a socialist and a fraud. He doesn’t HATE America as BHO does, but he’s no friend of individual rights and liberty. As for Palin, IMO she has no baggage whatsoever. 24,000 pages of e-mails and absolutely nothing was found, except that she a hard-working, kind, competent, couageous, successful governor and mom. The left has worked tirelessly for 2 1/2 years to destroy her and her family, and they all remain standing, undefeated. We would be so blessed to have Sarah Palin as our next President. Don’t fall for the radical socialist Soros-engendered LIES. :tsktsk:

Romney is a socialist? I see nothing in his record to support this accusation.

Sarah Palin is not going to run and if she did run she would not get the nomination. She could very well end up being the vice president and if so would probably be a formidable candidate in 2020

 

[estesbob]

I’m hoping for Bachmann…she’s unelectable at a national level and would promise us democrats four more years.

When I was your age I voted for McGovern. Liberalism looks absolutely fantastic until you get a job and start paying taxes.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I’m hoping for Bachmann…she’s unelectable at a national level and would promise us democrats four more years.

I tend to agree. Perhaps the GOP will nominate someone moderate - one can hope, anyway.