I
ishii
Guest
Really? So you don’t really care if the most anti-catholic president in our history gets re-elected? “they’re all the same” ?
Ishii
- Status
Ishii
R
rlg94086
Guest
Ron Paul isn’t George Wallace.If the candidate had the votes to win, then it wouldn’t really be a third party, would it?
Seriously though, can you really say that George Wallace, who pulled a few electoral votes, didn’t affect the political mandate that would have gone to Nixon or Humphrey had he not run? Political experts say he drew about the same number from each major-party candidate.
To answer your first question: it would still be a third party… A party is more than just a presidential nominee.
R
rlg94086
Guest
There are elitists at all points of the political spectrum - left, right and center. They feel their’s is the enlightened understanding, and everyone else is ignorant.
K
kubark
Guest
You are right that Ron Paul “aint no Teddy.” That’s a compliment, really. Teddy loathed Thomas Jefferson. Teddy was a very sick man who wrote in 1914: “I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feeble-minded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them.”
Teddy was the first truly “modern” President. He was the consumate Progressive. He was the original foreign interventionist, declaring to Congress in 1902 that “the increasing interdependence and complexity of international political and economic relations render it incumbent on all civilized and orderly powers to insist on the proper policing of the world.” He greatly increased and abused the power of the Executive Branch and his attachment to war and imperialism makes the Neoconservatives look like small beer. Catholic historian Tom Woods explains that:
Roosevelt’s fascination with war is corroborated both by his own testimony and by that of those who knew him. A college friend wrote in 1885, “He would like above all things to go to war with some one. . . . He wants to be killing something all the time.” Roosevelt told another friend a few years later:
“Frankly I don’t know that I should be sorry to see a bit of a spar with Germany. The burning of New York and a few other sea coast cities would be a good object lesson in the need of an adequate system of coast defenses, and I think it would have a good effect on our large German population to force them to an ostentatiously patriotic display of anger against Germany.”
Over and over again Roosevelt insisted that the country “needed” a war. “He gushes over war,” wrote the philosopher William James,
“as the ideal condition of human society, for the manly strenuousness which it involves, and treats peace as a condition of blubberlike and swollen ignobility, fit only for huckstering weaklings, dwelling in gray twilight and heedless of the higher life. . . . One foe is as good as another, for aught he tells us.”
The size of the American effort to suppress the Filipino nationalists has rarely been fully appreciated: some 126,000 American troops saw action in suppression campaigns, and an incredible 200,000 Filipinos lost their lives.
While the fighting was going on, the Philadelphia Ledger featured a front-page story by a correspondent covering General J. Franklin Bell’s campaign that read:
“The present war is no bloodless, fake, opera bouffé engagement. Our men have been relentless; have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people, from lads of ten and up, an idea prevailing that the Filipino, as such, was little better than a dog, a noisome reptile in some instances, whose best disposition was the rubbish heap. Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to ‘make them talk,’ have taken prisoner people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an hour later, without an atom of evidence to show that they were even insurrectos, stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one, to drop into the water below and float down as an example to those who found their bullet-riddled corpses.”
Roosevelt’s own views on race, which would take an entire chapter to describe in detail, only encouraged this kind of barbarism.
Roosevelt’s approach in the Philippines was only the most spectacular indication that the content of his foreign policy left much to be desired, and it inaugurated a century of humanitarian violence that would be couched in the saccharine language of idealism and justice. Even more important from the point of view of Theodore Roosevelt’s contributions to the presidency as an institution, however, is the more procedural question of how he actually carried out his policy. It is here that he demonstrated his most brazen contempt for the legislative branch.
An excellent example concerns Roosevelt’s decision to take over the customs houses in the Dominican Republic. In what has become known as the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, Theodore Roosevelt had declared in 1904 that although the United States had no territorial ambitions in its own hemisphere, cases of “chronic wrongdoing” on the part of a Latin American country that might invite occupation by a European power could force America’s hand. To forestall European occupation, the United States would intervene to restore order and to see that all just claims were satisfied. When it looked in early 1905 as though one or more European countries might intervene in the Dominican Republic to recover outstanding debt, Roosevelt put the Corollary into effect for the first time by declaring that the United States would administer the Dominican Republic’s customs collections to forestall any such foreign intervention. From the beginning, Theodore Roosevelt seemed to have hoped to be able to avoid consulting the Senate at all.
Instead of the classical vision of the American republic, Roosevelt solidified trends toward centralization that had been at work since the 1860s and institutionalized what amounted to a revolution in the American form of government. His legacy is cherished by neoconservatives and other nationalists but deplored by Americans who still possess a lingering attachment to the republic the framers established.
I
ishii
Guest
True, but I think its more prevalent on the secular left - or atleast its filled with vitriol. The Paul supporters are coming from the same reasoning as the secular left when they call Republicans or conservatives, “ignorant” and imply that we get told who to vote for by the news media. Strange that the comment is attributed to ProVobis, but it was me who posted it.
Ishii
K
kubark
Guest
Of course. I am going to be voting FOR a geniune conservative rather than AGAINST the Democrat.
What do you expect me to do, vote for the status-quo Republican candidate simply to defeat the Democrat? That kind of thinking got us into this mess. That kind of voting is insane in that it produces the same status-quo, big government frauds while expecting different, better results each time. That is the “save us from the monster” fallacy of which Chuck Baldwin wrote in 2007 that,
"I say again, it is time for ‘pro-life’ Republicans to put up or shut up!
Beyond that, it is time for Christian conservatives to stop being so gullible. We need to start looking beyond eloquent rhetoric and campaign clichés. We need to begin demanding results.
Every four years, Republicans trot out a conservative façade during an election season for the purpose of obtaining the votes of susceptible Christians. And every four years, conservative Christians–like starving catfish–take the bait: hook, line, and sinker.
‘Save us from the monster,’ seems to be the cry of well-meaning–but easily manipulated–conservatives. The ‘monster’ is whoever the Democrats nominate, of course. But, ladies and gentlemen, the Republican Party has done absolutely nothing to change the course of the country. Nothing! In fact, it has only gotten worse with Republicans in charge.
Ron Paul is the only candidate running against the status quo. He is the only candidate who takes his oath to the Constitution seriously. He is the only candidate who, if elected, would actually turn the country around. A Ron Paul victory would launch a new American revolution: a revolution of freedom and independence such as we have not seen since 1776. Furthermore, among the major Republican presidential contenders, Ron Paul is the only candidate whose pro-life commitment extends beyond rhetoric."
J
JimG
Guest
N
ndalum
Guest
If Santorum wins the Republican nomination, he will be the first Catholic Republican to do so. He may be the first Catholic Republican President. I have been waiting for this for a long time. If Romney were to win the nomination, I would be very disappointed if there were not a Catholic vice presidential running mate. There are so many good choices (McDonnell, Jindal, Santorum, Gingrich, J. Bush, Rubio). But, if Santorum wins, who would be a good choice. Of course ideally I would want 2 Catholics, but is the country ready for that? How about Santorum/ Huckabee? If he does win, I hope he chooses another conservative and not a moderate. He should choose someone with the same values. Perhaps a governor? John Kasich?
What about Gov. Susana Martinez of NM? female AND hispanic AND Catholic
What about Gov. Susana Martinez of NM? female AND hispanic AND Catholic
O
onmyknees
Guest
D
Dale_M
Guest
A traditional practice is to balance the ticket. If a presidential candidate is seen as moderate, then picking a running mate who is conservative (to appeal to Republicans) or liberal (to appeal to Democrats) is the customary strategy.
For a candidate who is perceived as either conservative or liberal, picking a moderate running mate is usually seen as a way to appeal to independent voters.
I think the pool of possible vice presidential candidates will vary greatly depending upon who wins the Republican nomination.
For a candidate who is perceived as either conservative or liberal, picking a moderate running mate is usually seen as a way to appeal to independent voters.
I think the pool of possible vice presidential candidates will vary greatly depending upon who wins the Republican nomination.
I
ishii
Guest
You are very wise. It is becoming more and more clear just what Obama has in store for this country and for the Catholic Church - such that the choice is not between Obama and a GOP candidate “who is just as bad as Obama” or whatever. The choice is now between a GOP candidate and a president who wants to dictate what kind of insurance the Catholic institutions have to provide, abortificients and probably much worse. Make no mistake, judging from his tactics and political calculations, and above all, his ideology, it is likely that we haven’t seen the worst yet from Obama.
This is why, even if you don’t like a Romney because he’s Mormon, or too establishmentarian or wishy-washy (fill in the blank) or even if you don’t like Santorum because he supposedly voted for too much spending or he played politics and helped Arlen Spector get re-elected, or he was too supportive of the Bush foreign policy (fill in the blank) you all have to admit that with Obama, you’re getting someone who is anti-Catholic who needs to be defeated. It is one thing to insist that Ron Paul might be the stronger candidate to go up against Obama, but once the nomination is settled, and its not Ron Paul, the choice will be between an anti-Catholic incumbent or a GOP candidate who is either catholic or atleast not hostile to catholics. Those who insist that they will write in Ron Paul in the general election are basically saying, " I don’t care if the anti-Catholic president gets re-elected, because I care more about voting for Ron Paul than I do about defending the Church against attacks, or defending the freedom of religion against attacks."
Ishii
N
ndalum
Guest
That HAS been the tradition, yet I think times have changed. Bush the conservative picked Cheney, a conservative. Regions used to be a factor, yet Clinton chose Gore.
I think the balance should be with executive experience / legislative experience. A good balance would be a senator and a governor or vice versa.
I don’t want Santorum to choose a moderate… But, there is probably a debate on who a moderate is. I’d be happy with Santorum/ Huckabee. Huckabee would not be conservative to some, but he is a conservative to me and I consider myself very conservative.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Given his gender gap in recent polls, I think he is likely to pick a woman. Beyond that, broadening your base in other ways is usually a good move. Dale M covered the overall liberal/conservative aspect.
Religious diversity is probably also a good move - there will be some religious conservatives who are anti-Catholic, but a much bigger issue is reassuring moderate and independent voters that he isn’t moving toward theocracy. He’s vulnerable on this due to his strong opposition to contraception, and support for some other Catholic social teachings that don’t resonate well with moderates.
From what I know about his economic positions, I think he’s fairly moderate within the GOP. If so, he shouldn’t need to reach toward the center to win independents. At the same time, few conservative Republican voters are likely to desert him, so there is no great need to shore up his Republican base in this area. He should have a pretty free hand.
Likewise, experience can be an important consideration for a candidate who lacks it - for this reason, Bush picked Cheney, Dukakis picked Bentsen, Obama picked Biden. An older, experienced candidate will sometimes pick a fresher face, although this didn’t work out especially well with Quayle and Palin. Anyway, Santorum is fairly middling in his experience and age, so I don’t think these will be big considerations for him.
Geographically and electorally, it’s always wise to consider someone from a vote-rich swing state in a part of the country other than your own. Florida would be an outstanding choice. PA is adjacent to the midwest; he could double-down on that area with someone from say Illinois.
Racial diversity on the ticket would be a great plus, due to the preconceived notions many voters have about the Republican party. If that is going to happen, I think it will almost certainly be a Hispanic. The leading black and Asian possibilities that I’m aware of just don’t have enough other points in their favor.
Skill in basic politicking, both in Congress and as an attack dog during the campaign, is another important factor. Newt would be superb in both areas, but he would weaken the ticket in other ways. It’s not quite as simple to grade a candidate on this factor, but choices who are poor or lackluster, like say Quayle or Gore, should be avoided.
Religious diversity is probably also a good move - there will be some religious conservatives who are anti-Catholic, but a much bigger issue is reassuring moderate and independent voters that he isn’t moving toward theocracy. He’s vulnerable on this due to his strong opposition to contraception, and support for some other Catholic social teachings that don’t resonate well with moderates.
From what I know about his economic positions, I think he’s fairly moderate within the GOP. If so, he shouldn’t need to reach toward the center to win independents. At the same time, few conservative Republican voters are likely to desert him, so there is no great need to shore up his Republican base in this area. He should have a pretty free hand.
Likewise, experience can be an important consideration for a candidate who lacks it - for this reason, Bush picked Cheney, Dukakis picked Bentsen, Obama picked Biden. An older, experienced candidate will sometimes pick a fresher face, although this didn’t work out especially well with Quayle and Palin. Anyway, Santorum is fairly middling in his experience and age, so I don’t think these will be big considerations for him.
Geographically and electorally, it’s always wise to consider someone from a vote-rich swing state in a part of the country other than your own. Florida would be an outstanding choice. PA is adjacent to the midwest; he could double-down on that area with someone from say Illinois.
Racial diversity on the ticket would be a great plus, due to the preconceived notions many voters have about the Republican party. If that is going to happen, I think it will almost certainly be a Hispanic. The leading black and Asian possibilities that I’m aware of just don’t have enough other points in their favor.
Skill in basic politicking, both in Congress and as an attack dog during the campaign, is another important factor. Newt would be superb in both areas, but he would weaken the ticket in other ways. It’s not quite as simple to grade a candidate on this factor, but choices who are poor or lackluster, like say Quayle or Gore, should be avoided.
T
Tietjen
Guest
I’m not going to attempt to analyze different possible picks or what mold a given VP appointment should take on… I’m just going to say that my dream team would be a Rick Santorum / Marco Rubio ticket.
N
ndalum
Guest
I agree that would be a GREAT ticket!I’m not going to attempt to analyze different possible picks or what mold a given VP appointment should take on… I’m just going to say that my dream team would be a Rick Santorum / Marco Rubio ticket.
Are we taking over the government ? Catholic president, vice president, speaker, Supreme Court?
S
Semper_Zelare
Guest
If Obama’s proposed legislation (which will in less than 1 year force Catholic institutions to provide contraception, and morning after pills in their insurance plans…) makes him anti-Catholic.
Then, wouldn’t actual legislation passed by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts that forced the Catholic Church to provide contraception in that state make him anti-Catholic?
It just has to be said, I’m not campaigning for any candidate saying that, that is a genuine qualm I have with Romney. And, he could do something to alleviate that qualm: he could apologize and say he changed his view or something like that.
But, he doesn’t, he blames other people, says the state is Democrat. Well… what happens to “The buck stops here”.
Because Rick Santorum is right when Mitt Romney is the same as Barrack Obama the issue becomes moot… when the issue becomes moot stuff like this happens:
huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/11/mitt-romney-birth-control_n_1270668.html
“Mitt Romney attacks Obama on Contraception mandate, despite being silent on similar law as governor”
huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/08/obama-attacks-mitt-romney_n_1263485.html
“Obama attacks Mitt Romney on birth control”
So, you can defend Mitt Romney from attacks, just like democrats can defend Obama from attacks. The point is, we need a Republican who people can’t say, “isn’t it ironic that he’s attacking me on this, seeing as he did the same thing”. That’s what Obama basically said.
Do I believe Mitt Romney is anti-Catholic? No. But, I do believe that Mitt Romney was at one time so moderate where he didn’t give a rip if Catholic hospitals had to provide contraception. He didn’t care, he ran to the left of Ted Kennedy on social issues…
Are his actions unforgivable? No. But, they are unforgivable if he doesn’t admit fault. If he doesn’t do that, I refuse to vote for him because of what he did to the Catholic Church in Massachusetts.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Marco Rubio, or Susana Martinez would be the best choices for VP, I think, for any of the four Republican presidential candidates left standing.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Yup, Theodore Roosevelt is the father of the Imperial Presidency. The grandfather, of course, being Abraham Lincoln.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
He actually does a great job of telling us how to vote as Catholics who happen to be American, rather than as Americans who happen to be Catholic.
He summarized in 10 minutes what I have been awkwardly trying to do for almost a year. I mean, just take all of the Ron Paul references out and just listen to how he talks about subsidiary, economics, and being authentically pro-life.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
**
CNN Poll: Obama approval rating back to 50% mark
Nate Silver says the fundamentals now point to an Obama re-election**
- Status