Republican voters??

[johnstown_johnn]

One candidate is an Obstetrician and has delivered hundreds of newborns. He has expressed his wonder of the birth of new life and its sacredness. He has been a stalwart supporter of the unborn. Not just in words but in actual life’s experiences.

 

[rlg94086]

One candidate is an Obstetrician and has delivered hundreds of newborns. He has expressed his wonder of the birth of new life and its sacredness. He has been a stalwart supporter of the unborn. Not just in words but in actual life’s experiences.

Sure, but he isn’t the only pro-lifer. He is one of the four I described as solid pro-lifers. The other three are a former governor and two congressmen. I also don’t think the 2-3 who some think are not pro-life enough are as problematic. I only really have a problem with the front-runner, but he won’t necessarily win. That’s why I prefer to wait-and-see before being cornered into a third party vote, when there isn’t even a third party choice right now.

 

[Catholic_Kat]

What’s wrong with Huckabee? He’s got my vote!

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Sure, but he isn’t the only pro-lifer. He is one of the four I described as solid pro-lifers. The other three are a former governor and two congressmen. I also don’t think the 2-3 who some think are not pro-life enough are as problematic. I only really have a problem with the front-runner, but he won’t necessarily win. That’s why I prefer to wait-and-see before being cornered into a third party vote, when there isn’t even a third party choice right now.

There will be a Third Party. As to who, if any, of the current candidates bolt to that Third Party is just a guess at this time.

What many of us will NOT be fooled is a “manipulation” by a candidate who is pro-abortion and chooses a pro-lifer as a running mate. That is NOT such a new game anymore…not these days anyway. This kind of “manipulation” is half-evil; half-holy…NO SUCH THING. Life cannot be compromised.

Still. there is a lot of time for things to “shake out.” We will get a clearer perspective on all the candidates because down the road they will be forced to make their stances public. Some we already know.

Lately, it seems, to me at least, that in America today and with the issues of life, war etc., voting is no longer who wins or who loses…it is about ME, YOU and all the others. Voting tells us who WE really are. Hope I explained that sufficiently.

 

[mozart-250]

What’s wrong with Huckabee? He’s got my vote!

Huckabee is fine. He’s probably #2 on my preferred list.

The problem is my preferred list is roughly the current polls in reverse order.

 

[scottm]

The problem is my preferred list is roughly the current polls in reverse order.

Ain’t it always!

It’s not a laughing matter, really. I know.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I like the guy who wrote this.

Members of Congress from both political parties outdid themselves last week in heaping praise upon Pope John Paul II in the wake of his passing. Many spoke at length on the floor of the House of Representatives, and some even flew to Rome for his funeral.

I’m happy to witness so many politicians honoring a great man of God and peace. The problem, however, is that so few of them honored him during his lifetime by their actions as legislators. In fact, most members of Congress support policies that are totally at odds with Catholic teachings.

Just two years ago conservatives were busy scolding the Pope for his refusal to back our invasion of Iraq. One conservative media favorite even made the sickening suggestion that the Pope was the enemy of the United States because he would not support our aggression in the Middle East. The Pontiff would not ignore the inherent contradiction in being pro-life and pro-war, nor distort just war doctrine to endorse attacking a nation that clearly posed no threat to America – and conservatives resented it. September 11th did not change everything, and the Pope understood that killing is still killing. The hypocritical pro-war conservatives lauding him today have very short memories.

Liberals also routinely denounced the Pope for maintaining that Catholicism, like all religions, has rules that cannot simply be discarded to satisfy the cultural trends of the time. The political left has been highly critical of the Pope’s positions on abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, feminism, and contraception. Many liberals frankly view Catholicism as an impediment to the fully secular society they hope to create.

Both conservatives and liberals cannot understand that the Pope’s pronouncements were theological, not political. He was one of the few humans on earth who could not be bullied or threatened by any government. He was a man of God, not a man of the state. He was not a policy maker, but rather a steward of long-established Catholic doctrine. His mission was to save souls, not serve the political agendas of any nation, party, or politician.

To the secularists, this was John Paul II’s unforgivable sin – he placed service to God above service to the state. Most politicians view the state, not God, as the supreme ruler on earth. They simply cannot abide a theology that does not comport with their vision of unlimited state power. This is precisely why both conservatives and liberals savaged John Paul II when his theological pronouncements did not fit their goals. But perhaps their goals simply were not godly.

Unlike most political leaders, the Pope understood that both personal and economic liberties are necessary for human virtue to flourish. Virtue, after all, involves choices. Politics and government operate to deny people the freedom to make their own choices.

The Pope’s commitment to human dignity, grounded in the teachings of Christ, led him to become an eloquent and consistent advocate for an ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty. Yet what institutions around the world sanction abortion, war, euthanasia, and the death penalty? Governments.

Historically, religion always represented a threat to government because it competes for the loyalties of the people. In modern America, however, most religious institutions abandoned their independence long ago, and now serve as cheerleaders for state policies like social services, faith-based welfare, and military aggression in the name of democracy. Few American churches challenge state actions at all, provided their tax-exempt status is maintained. This is why Washington politicians ostensibly celebrate religion – it no longer threatens their supremacy. Government has co-opted religion and family as the primary organizing principle of our society. The federal government is boss, and everybody knows it. But no politician will ever produce even a tiny fraction of the legacy left by Pope John Paul II.

April 12, 2005

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Thank you for the item. It solidifies things as to who the author is. The man is uncomplicated.

 

[richardwy]

If I don’t vote, that will ensure that another person I don’t want gets in. This is so difficult.

I keep thinking I won’t vote.

Wait for a nominee to exist.

If none suit me, I shall write in someone’s name I think would make a fine President.

Not vote???

 

[johnstown_johnn]

As we move along towards choosing a nominee for the Pesidency we have some piercing contradictions inasmuch as Catholic perception is seen.

We, naturally, see protection of the unborn as foremost. One of the parties endorses abortion as their fundamental stance while the other has “life” as something pushed into the background.

We must not ignore the War either. Neither parties’ candidates have solid “end-the-war” messages (one or two do but it is not defined).

The last few national elections I found myself voting for “the lesser of two evils” and still outraged with issues that are taken with the candidate that may be pro-life. but very pro-War.

So, I’ve reached a crossroads whereby it doesn’t matter anymore which party wins I will vote for what I believe knowing full well my choice will not win. Third Party is where my vote will go…my vote is ABOUT ME.

 

[estesbob]

As we move along towards choosing a nominee for the Pesidency we have some piercing contradictions inasmuch as Catholic perception is seen.

We, naturally, see protection of the unborn as foremost. One of the parties endorses abortion as their fundamental stance while the other has “life” as something pushed into the background.

We must not ignore the War either. Neither parties’ candidates have solid “end-the-war” messages (one or two do but it is not defined).

The last few national elections I found myself voting for “the lesser of two evils” and still outraged with issues that are taken with the candidate that may be pro-life. but very pro-War.

So, I’ve reached a crossroads whereby it doesn’t matter anymore which party wins I will vote for what I believe knowing full well my choice will not win. Third Party is where my vote will go…my vote is ABOUT ME.

If both parties nominate someone who is pro-abortion so will mine.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

If both parties nominate someone who is pro-abortion so will mine.

That is a great possibility that both parties will have a pro-abort candidate.

What they’ve managed to get away with, so to corral the pro-life folks is to have a Vice Pres. candidate that is “pro-life.” It is a phoney balance. Many of us will fall for that facade but many will not fall for that ruse…

But with me, it is this War that is just as important.

It’s no great forecast to look ahead and believe there will be a Third Party soon after the primaries. No doubt about it. On different forums there is a groundswell for a Third Party (NOT the Greenies or other fringe movements). A genuine Third Party.

It cannot win but it will have a voice that will be heard. It will say to the two major parties that, “we are still here!”

 

[Ender]

If both parties nominate someone who is pro-abortion so will mine.

I am a little surprised you would say that. While there is no doubt at all as to what kind of supreme court justice we would get from a Democrat I expect that even a pro-choice Republican would nominate someone who would be acceptable to the party. We may not get another Alito but we surely won’t get another Ginsburg.

Will you really feel you have done something useful by making an ineffective gesture rather than doing something positive to lessen the damage that will result from the election? The idea that choosing the lesser of two evils is still evil boggles the mind. Suppose a house is on fire and there are two children inside in rooms on opposite ends of the house. You have time to save only one so your options are to let one die or let them both die; you don’t have the option of saving them both. I cannot imagine anyone not only letting them both die but then going home and congratulating himself for not choosing the lesser of the two evils - letting one child die.

You do the pro-life side no favor by not working to limit the damage it will sustain from a contest between two pro-abortion candidates.

Ender

 

[estesbob]

That is a great possibility that both parties will have a pro-abort candidate.

What they’ve managed to get away with, so to corral the pro-life folks is to have a Vice Pres. candidate that is “pro-life.” It is a phoney balance. Many of us will fall for that facade but many will not fall for that ruse…

But with me, it is this War that is just as important.

It’s no great forecast to look ahead and believe there will be a Third Party soon after the primaries. No doubt about it. On different forums there is a groundswell for a Third Party (NOT the Greenies or other fringe movements). A genuine Third Party.

It cannot win but it will have a voice that will be heard. It will say to the two major parties that, “we are still here!”

I dont think the war will be much of an issue next year. Given the drop off in violence and the movement of Iraqis on the political front its potency as an issue will have diminished, although it may continue to be a problem for the democrat nominee from the hard left of their party. I also think there will be little difference on how the gradual withdrawal will take place regardless of who is elected.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

I dont think the war will be much of an issue next year. Given the drop off in violence and the movement of Iraqis on the political front its potency as an issue will have diminished, although it may continue to be a problem for the democrat nominee from the hard left of their party. I also think there will be little difference on how the gradual withdrawal will take place regardless of who is elected.

The “drop off” in violence is only a lull. It will pick up we can be sure of that. But it is even more than “violence” it is what we are just beginning to feel here at home. Oil/gasoline prices will be going through the roof; availability will be a prob, as well. We have seen gasoline shortages and long lines here…it will happen again.

The dollar is falling…falling…falling. Jobs have left this Country and many foreclosures on middle American homeowners because of layoffs.

Trade deficits, especially China will not get better…they will get WORSE. Why? Because the Administration has borrowed money from China (Japan and Germany, too) to finance this War. The trade deficits are a kind of “payback.” If China wanted to “cash-in” the U.S. Treasury notes for what we owe them we will be virtually bankrupt. And that could happen because our dollar is in a freefall.

As for Supreme Court pro-life nominees…no Republican president will ever get them through a democrat Congress…No way, Jose!

It is the way things are and America is bogged down in a costly war with no end in sight. No way do I vote for a Democrat or a Republican…they have BOTH cast us (middle Americans) aside.

A Third Party will be a Middle American Party. They will not win but at least we will be heard as a “voice in the wilderness.” It may not be a big deal but it will be OUR voices.

 

[RomanCrusader]

I’d much rather have a pro-life Mormon than a pro-abortion candidate.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I’d much rather have a pro-life Mormon than a pro-abortion candidate.

yes, quite sad when the mormon is the only one with one wife.

 

[estesbob]

The “drop off” in violence is only a lull. It will pick up we can be sure of that. But it is even more than “violence” it is what we are just beginning to feel here at home. Oil/gasoline prices will be going through the roof; availability will be a prob, as well. We have seen gasoline shortages and long lines here…it will happen again.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the violence is going to pick up again. I doubt we are going to see gas lines as the current problem has nothing to do is supply or demand. It is totally based on skittishness in the futures market on the situation in Iran and Venezuela. Since neither these countries can afford to cut back on the amount of oil they sell I think are going to see gasoline prices come down.

The dollar is falling…falling…falling. Jobs have left this Country and many foreclosures on middle American homeowners because of layoffs.

Which is good for American exports. Ignored in all this doom and gloom is the fact that the economy grew 3.9% in the third quarter and produced 169,000 new jobs. Of course one has to little digging to find this because the mainstream media is invested in the scenarios you describe above.

Trade deficits, especially China will not get better…they will get WORSE. Why? Because the Administration has borrowed money from China (Japan and Germany, too) to finance this War. The trade deficits are a kind of “payback.” If China wanted to “cash-in” the U.S. Treasury notes for what we owe them we will be virtually bankrupt. And that could happen because our dollar is in a freefall.

Like the deficit trade deficits are always held up as being the net cause the downfall of our economy. And as with the deficit it never happens. China depends on us for trade -bankrupting our economy is the last than they want to do. The reality is they need us more than the need them.

As for Supreme Court pro-life nominees…no Republican president will ever get them through a democrat Congress…No way, Jose!

Assuming there will be a democrat Congress after the next time. And I believe that a Republican president will be up against a conservative nominee through the Congress regardless of who is in charge.

It is the way things are and America is bogged down in a costly war with no end in sight. No way do I vote for a Democrat or a Republican…they have BOTH cast us (middle Americans) aside.

IThe costly war with no end in sight is mere rhetoric. We have seen great progress in Iraq and we will see a drawdown of troops and the money spent in the near future.

A Third Party will be a Middle American Party. They will not win but at least we will be heard as a “voice in the wilderness.” It may not be a big deal but it will be OUR voices.

I agree with this only to the extent that the Republican Party needs to know unequivocably that they will lose when they nominate pro-abortion candidates.

 

[estesbob]

yes, quite sad when the mormon is the only one with one wife.

The last president we had who had more than one wife was one of the greatest in history.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

yes, quite sad when the mormon is the only one with one wife.

The Republican Party has evolved. It is STILL not yet defined but one thing we all know: it’s DIFFERENT.

Some points looking ahead next November.

If the leading Democrat wins the nomination the one thing that cannot be ignored is that candidate has over 50% negative in polls taken a few years ago and up to the present.
Likely voters (50+%) say they will NEVER vote for that person. This could mean a switch in that Party…a Dark Horse. Those negatives are serious.

On the other hand, the Republicans have problems with a couple of their leading candidates. The one who is LEAST pro-life is leading in some primary polls. How does anyone make sense of any of this?

A Third Party will take away votes from BOTH parties but from the Republicans more so. From this point it looks like neither Party will get a majority…it’ll be a plurality. This is where the Third Party comes in. It’s going to be different.