Response to "Alright, so who do we vote for???"
posted by: MattyMattyChooChoo
December 7, 2007
10:38 am
I think Romney hit the nail on the head in his speech yesterday. He's not running as a Mormon, but as an American. A good Catholic politician should also be running as an American. True American principles do not contradict true Catholic teaching, but reflect it.
On the issue of pro-lifeyness, the question is one of practicality. Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned today, few (if any) states will pass a 100% ban on abortion. Chances are, the ban will allow the usual exceptions of rape, incest, life of the mother, etc.. Is it not practical to vote for a non-viable candidate in the General Election. The non-viable 100% pro-life candidate will not win. If you remove the option of voting the third party, the of course the answer is to vote for the person who is more pro-life (or less pro-abortion).
In the Primary Election, I think it is still a good idea to vote for a viable candidate, for the same reasons as in the General Election. We don’t want a pro-abortion candidate like Rudy to win the nomination.
The issue of Mitt Romney’s flip-flopping is not of the same context as John Kerry. Mitt Romney has given reasons based on intellect as to why he moved from liberal opinion to conservative views on several issues. Most (if not all) liberals simply move for the sake of positioning. Their answers all depend on the audience. Hillary Clinton made that mistake with illegal immigrants and driver’s licenses.
Huckabee is strong only in Iowa. It seems as though his status as a preacher has found favor among Protestants looking for a pope. The Huckabee supporters seem to treat him as though he is a combination of Rev. Billy Graham and Ronald Reagan. They want a president who will be a spiritual leader.
posted by: wljewell
December 7, 2007
5:01 pm
God loves you .
Fair enough . . . anyone else?
Remember, I love you, too .
In our delighted glory in our Infant King,
Pristinus Sapienter
(wljewell @catholicexchange.com or ... yahoo.com)
posted by: bhokuto
December 7, 2007
8:11 pm
Until Christ comes to reign this will be an on going issue.
The best choice is ask God always. Seek first the Kingdom of Heaven and it's justice
and all these things will be added on to you.
Peace
posted by: wljewell
December 7, 2007
8:32 pm
God loves you .
(As long as the thready string got over here . . .)
True, bhokuto - but He gave us the brains and reason to go with the faith and graces to make earth-provincial political decisions . . . . . . . .
At my own "Alright, so who do we vote for???" topic, I listed John McCain as a possibility. However, now a fellow I trust more than all politicians (lawyers, etc.) combined, Thomas Sowell, finds McCain arrogantly cocky and bullying in debates. As Professor Sowell put it, ". . . the debates show him to be the kind of arrogant and condescending know-it-all who would be the most dangerous kind of president."
Scratch McCain.
BTW, Thomas Sowell, Ph.D. economics from U.of.Chicago via magna cum laude at Harvard, and Columbia U., is about the only economist (and cultural observer) whose writings I consistently comprehend. One tribute: ". . . much of his writing is considered ground-breaking — work that will outlive the great majority of scholarship done today."
Remember, I love you, too .
In our delighted glory in our Infant King,
Pristinus Sapienter
(wljewell @catholicexchange.com or ... yahoo.com)
posted by: pouliot
December 7, 2007
8:50 pm
Re: voting for or against
If only there were a none of the above option.
What about this guy Hunter? A vote can always be a statement crying in the wilderness.
posted by: bhokuto
December 7, 2007
9:00 pm
I personally wouldn't budge to any current office holders. Because they all commune around their round table. In Party.
At the sametime it seems the choice for an outsider is slim to none. But maybe God is looking to raise the bar a bit here with Romney? It looks like a bugle has sounded?
Maybe... rather interesting because my yelps to God.......
how much longer will we have to deal with the ungodly? How much longer do I not get an Holy reprisal? How much longer do I have to hear bickering over things of this world? How much longer will I be a pilgrim in a world that does not seek the Eternal Kingdom?
...... but maybe it's not just me? It's probably the voice of one crying in the wilderness...........
Peace
posted by: wljewell
December 8, 2007
10:51 am
God loves you .
It seems to be a malady of this current Prexy campaign that the longer it goes on, only fringe candidates have any attraction - and, maybe, only because little has been written about them.
My tongue-firmly-in-cheek cause for
has more 'gravitas' with me than these so-called candidates.
And, sadly, gents, I think many of us are going to come to the end of our pilgrimages nearly alone.
BUT - better 'living forever alone' with God than 'eternally dead' (and without God), and in heaps, in hell.
Remember, I love you, too .
In our delighted glory in our Infant King,
Pristinus Sapienter
(wljewell @catholicexchange.com or ... yahoo.com)
posted by: Winslow
December 8, 2007
1:58 pm
"If only there were a none of the above option....A vote can always be a statement crying in the wilderness."
That's what my votes have been for the past decade at least. It's important to cast a vote, for yourself, Donald Duck, your mother-in-law, just to let them know there's a vote there neither major party got.
wljewell has given me a better idea. I'm going with Mary this time.
BTW, I'm from Massachusetts. Believe me, Romney will say anything to satisfy the audience in front of him. Whatever it takes. That's what Mitt stands for.
posted by: bhokuto
December 8, 2007
5:54 pm
Winslow,
Good joke,
I'm not voting for "any" should also be on the ballot.......
Peace
posted by: wljewell
December 10, 2007
5:38 pm
God loves you .
Two heads-up comments -
About Mitt (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/SandyRios/2007/12/10/mitt_romney_may_have_had_no_choice,_but_i_do)
About 'Huck' (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DouglasMacKinnon/2007/12/10/huckabee_--_the_ultimate_liberal_plant)
Remember, I love you, too .
In our delighted glory in our Infant King,
Pristinus Sapienter
(wljewell @catholicexchange.com or ... yahoo.com)
posted by: KenB
December 11, 2007
9:43 am
I am Republican, and so can only vote in the Republican primary. I am leaning toward Romney, with Huckabee or McCain as his running mate, but have not yet decided. I tend toward candidates who have executive experience, like former governors or mayors. Because governors or mayors are held more responsible for things than congressmen are, they tend to be more focused on getting things accomplished. I think that while as Republicans, we of course need to nominate someone whose views are in line with our shared values, at the same time we need to choose someone who is electable nationally. That is, he needs to also garner a fair number of Democrat votes in the general election.
Ken's run-down of the candidates:
While Tancredo is a good guy and very focused on immigration, he is otherwise a bit fuzzy and in any case, because of his strident talk on immigration, he simply is not electable. He is a good man to work the immigration issue in Congress or in a cabinet position but frankly, Tancredo will not be president.
Ron Paul is a good man but as a fringe candidate, nobody seriously thinks he is going to be nominated.
Giuliani's is decent, but he is not pro-life and his personal life is far too chaotic. Nobody is going to vote for a man with so many wives.
Hunter (from CA) has not come out with anything fresh - yet. He might surprise me however. In any case I think would be a good running mate for whomever is nominated.
Thompson is a very good speaker and has good balance, but like McCain, he is older and moreover, does not seem to have the energy. I think he would be an excellent vice president.
McCain is good, but is up there in years and I think he would be a good vice president.
I always have liked Alan Keyes. I think he is a good man, and smart and articulate but frankly, he is a bit too far away from the mainstream. I do think however, that he could be a good running mate, or at least should be considered for any Republican president's cabinet.
Romney gave a good talk on his religion, on religion in general and its place in our society. He is a good family man and seems to understand the issues. In short, his Mormanisms does not bother me and I might vote for him.
Huckabee is a very good guy and also seems to have a good grasp of the issues we face. As a former protestant preacher, he is a man of Christian principles. He is smart, quick-witted, friendly and decent, and he might get my vote.
With the exception of Giuliani, the Republicans are pro-life, and that is a very big plus in my book.
posted by: MattyMattyChooChoo
December 11, 2007
8:43 pm
I too am leaning toward Romney. He pushes more of the religious freedom and morals rather than pushing a brand of Christianity like Huckabee is doing.
McCain looked good until I found out he supports embryonic stem-cell research. He'd be a step to the left from our current president.
I identify the most with Fred Thompson, but he seems to lack the energy of the other candidates.
I've heard good things about Duncan Hunter on Rush, but he's invisible.
Ron Paul is too full of his own Constitutional virtue to distance himself from freaks like the neo-nazis, pornographers, and Dennis Kucinich.
Alan Keyes. It's good to be pro-life, but I hear he didn't even make it onto the ballot in some states.
Huckabee is...well...he's on the right side of the life issues. I have major problems with his concept of justice. He supported the in-state tuition breaks for illegal immigrants, and he granted more clemencies and pardons in his term as governor than all 6 surrounding states combined. Many of the people released were murderers, and one even raped and murdered two women AFTER he was released. If he gives murderers a break, how tough will he be in national security?
When I was applying to colleges, I was informed that in-state tuition was only granted if you lived in the state for a certain period of time long before applying to the college. You weren't considered in-state if you moved to that state in the same year. I don't understand why citizens of the United States and legal residents must still pay full out-of-state tuition, but people who came illegally get a break? It is unjust.
Also, Huckabee only has a boom in Iowa. His New Hampshire polls are still as low as ever.
I know nothing of Tancredo.
Giuliani will take the GOP to hell in a handbasket.
Lastly, voting third party or "sending a message" in a General election is not good. There is no good which comes from it, only an empowering of evil. If the third party or write in option were removed, you would vote for the more pro-life (or less pro-abortion) candidate. By removing your vote from the less pro-abortion candidate, you are allowing the more pro-abortion candidate to have on more vote comparatively. Also, the candidates are not going to see or care that anybody wrote "bugs bunny" or "Jesus" in the blank. Many Republicans voted third party in 1992 and 1996 and Bill Clinton won with less than 50% of the votes. He furthered the pro-abortion cause more than George H. W. Bush or Bob Dole ever would have dreamed. So by third party voting, we ended up with a far worse President than if everyone voted for the less pro-abortion candidate.
If you want to send a message, write a letter.
posted by: bhokuto
December 12, 2007
1:58 am
Prayer for good reviews, but you know the office there in DC has a way of corrupting or isolating or both. So whoever goes there becomes one or the other. Thus we see that a president is just a pawn.
Peace
posted by: MattyMattyChooChoo
December 12, 2007
7:18 pm
It seems the best way to pick a candidate this election season will be through the process of elimination.
If the following is true, Romney will not have my vote. Oddly enough it is on the National Review site, a rather conservative magazine which ironically just announced their endorsement of Romney. We'll see if they change their tune.
Team Thompson Shoots [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Just in my inbox:
He's hit Romney on abortion in press e-mails after at least two debates now. If he has any money, too, I bet we see a commercial before long.
posted by: bhokuto
December 12, 2007
8:38 pm
Well,
I have said that whoever goes to DC gets corrupted or gets isolated or both. Because the Seat in Washington DC is not Justice but Corruption, ie., power, prestige, and so forth the rest of the vices which enthrone it.
You cannot convert this kind of corruption without abandoning it. It has to be crushed, extinguished.
The best example which should prompt more indepth studies and lessons is
the fact of Israel's demise. AD 70, The Temple was destroyed Jewish people scattered to the four corners. Has to be destroyed.
Sin works like this, it has to be eradicated.
Peace
posted by: lpioch
December 13, 2007
6:46 am
All I can say is, being here in Massachusetts, Romney's "face" of conservative values that he carries now is certainly not the same as his views not-that-long-ago when he was governor here.
I'll repeat Warren's link in his post above:
Mitt and Gay marriage
I can't help being a pessimist when it comes to politics (I generally NEVER discuss politics!), but I simply cannot see how one cannot be corrupted by the process.
At which point, your process-of-elimination method seems to be the "best" process (and I use the word "best" very liberally). I'm still having difficulty being left with ANY options.
posted by: wljewell
December 13, 2007
8:21 am
God loves you .
lpioch and all,
It comes down to principle - something that I think some thought they saw in 'Dubya' but has been evaporated in his ways in office.
We look to persons with principle who 'stand above' frays in order to give their most sage decisions for action. I think this principled talent or attribute was best expressed in George Washington, and has been eroded over time by the self-centered opportunism of party and faction ('special interest') politics. It began when Adams' Federalists faced Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans; indeed, may have started with the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers. It could be that we have been as 'lost' as we are now since that very Presidential election - only our third, and only after Washington had been exhausted of his principled strengths.
I believe that Lincoln's legacy has been created more from his principles than his Presidency, which was awash in the violence of the War Between the States. But, after Abe, who can we point to? Even the acclaimed Reagan and FDR were more political critters than strongly principled leaders. My late wife would have argued Teddy Roosevelt's case; however, to me, he began as principled and soon enough joined in the party-faction dance. The same might be said of a few other Presidents.
And, I have noted before that Bush and Gore, and Bush and Kerry have more in common with each other than with any ordinary citizen voter. That is telling - principles have been so undermined and compromised, they are not recognizable as translating from voter to candidate and vice-versa.
There is a possibility that especially the executive but also the legislative branch have yielded powers to others, from the judiciary to lobbying groups, and toward potentially fatal outcome. In effect, the President and Congress are pawns from out of their own cowardly and indolent capitulation and submission. The biggest problem with that is these two important branches then yield state and individual powers away, too. The ensuing overall disuse and abuse of power impinges on very you and me.
For great instance, the President should have gone to the Congress with the 'penumbra for rights' garbage by which abortion came out of SCOTUS, and demanded that he would not obey their decision; and, would abide the impeachment of the whole of the justices based on their abuse of power. Only the legislature can make law; only the executive offices can enforce the laws; no court can do either.
And . . . I am babbling. But, where are the persons of principle to become our leaders, 'above it all' that citizens know their integrity? I do not see them in any of the current 'litter' of critters. A few are close - and, are verily the least known and unlikely to be nominated.
And, are what we get for 'debates' debates, or a variety of horse-and-pony show? Hillary certainly thought the latter, and is whining over her opponents' growing debating tactics. The general and media handling of Russert's 'unfair' question over illegal aliens and drivers' licenses seems to acknowledge that Russert was supposed to 'horse' for Hillary's 'pony'. (And, hence, let us not go into how our media has long failed us, and are part of our problem.)
Remember, I love you, too .
In our delighted glory in our Infant King,
Pristinus Sapienter
(wljewell @catholicexchange.com or ... yahoo.com)
posted by: wljewell
December 13, 2007
8:31 am
God loves you .
Oh, yes, the 'none of the above option' . . .
'Start the whole primary process over' has a solid ring to it - to keep rejecting the nominated until we get the principled. Then again, in that who get nominated are sort of what most Americans have come to deserve as much as expect ? ? ?
More powerfully, 'if I vote for any of these, I will have to follow on with my Second Amendment rights'? This is where any party's candidates come together with other parties' hacks under the title 'targets'.
Also, 'let's leave the office open for four years and see if we really need it' should be true for every department, office and post in government above janitor. And, how about 'dump all incumbents first'?
Remember, I love you, too .
In our delighted glory in our Infant King,
Pristinus Sapienter
(wljewell @catholicexchange.com or ... yahoo.com)
posted by: wljewell
December 13, 2007
8:54 am
God loves you .
("HE WON'T SHUT-UP!" Maybe, he thinks that HE's running for office . . .)
One pundit holds against Romney his advertised and even heralded 'get the data do the process' ways. Didn't many us complain of nearly this very approach with Bill Clinton, who didn't seem to attend to his toilet without consulting the 'data' - uh, polls? Data-process may work in 'mere' CEO capacities, but not where politics - the science of power, after all - requires the depths of principles that just may be permanently lost to us. (Though, of course, solid principles are great in any capacity, from baby-sitter to Emperor.) It all could be our national 'slippery slope' into the abyss. (I'd love to hear Augustine, Aquinas, Tocqueville, Chesterton and Sowell - yes, yes, impossible unless we all meet before the Eternal Throne - get together and volubly 'scratch their heads' over our predicament. And, I'd bring in Mencken, too, but I have the opinion that his eternity is FAR from the Throne.)
Are we to settle for mere 'computer' leadership? If so, I could write a better program, with a most sophisticted (learned, history-bound, principle-based) decision-tree 'President'. Think how you all could join in on analyzing and designing such a 'monster'! (HeeHeeHeeHee - "IT'S ALIVE! Or, at least more so than VanBuren, Eisenhower and the first Bush." 'Less power, Igor - LESS power!')
Remember, I love you, too .
In our delighted glory in our Infant King,
Pristinus Sapienter
(wljewell @catholicexchange.com or ... yahoo.com)
posted by: Tarheel
December 13, 2007
8:56 am
In recent weeks I have been watching more closely the candidates that are running for president. Sadly I don't see any that I really like. On the democrat side I feel all of them have lost touch with America. They have their party agenda and they think that is what America needs. I think Hillary just wants to be the first woman president instead of being president. Obama has similar goals. I question both on the basis of patriotism and moral values.
I agree with Matty that we need to look at "less pro-abortion" than "pro-life", because unfortunately a bona fide pro-life candidate doesn't have a snow ball's chance in.... of getting elected. And if he did Congress and the lobbyists are so either pro-choice or pro-abortion that they would negate the president's feelings or desires. With this in mind we need to watch very closely who we send to Congress. They can be more dangerous than a president.
Not sure who I would pick on the Republican side. Romney comes across as honest and sincere but is that for real or a conditioned response? Ron Paul just doesn't get the media he needs to make it. And neither do some of the others. Thompson and McCain get media attention but appearance wise they pale when compared to Romney. Yes the media will highlight looks. Remember what they did to Nixon during his debate with Kennedy. And the media and how they portray a candidate carries a lot of influence in American voters.
There are major issues that need to be addressed in this next election. And we as voters need to do all we can to address those issues at the polls. And not just when we vote for President but for all offices. In this election maybe more so than those in the past we need to pray for guidance when it comes to voting this time around.
Tarheel
posted by: David T Garrison
December 13, 2007
9:50 am
Matt and all,
I have said it before and I will say it again. So, here it is:
You wrote: Lastly, voting third party or "sending a message" in a General election is not good. There is no good which comes from it, only an empowering of evil.
The only message I will be sending is to the only One who cares to hear it.
Lord, please raise up for us someone that Loretta will find irreproachable to the corruption, who brings your universal message of love for all.
If you don't, I will give no man or woman my vote who does not regard the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, from conception to natural death, for all races, as a matter of fact and not a notion hatched in the minds of men that lived 250 years ago.
In Christ,
p.s. Does the Church not have a teaching on the lesser of two evils?
Remember, the Sun is always shining!
posted by: internate
December 17, 2007
7:24 pm
For me, this question is a simple one, not only as an American but as a Catholic. My vote is for Ron Paul. He is the only candidate who has consistently voted no against abortion, and seeing as how he's an OBGYN doctor I can't think of any candidate who would know more about this issue than him. Second, he's the only candidate who's voted consistently against the war in Iraq. If we are to look at the Church's view of Just War Theory, we would see that it is strikingly in line with Ron Paul's non-interventionist point of view. His point of view on following the constitution is not idealistic or fringe, as many of you here seem to believe. There is incredible wisdom in it and the world seems to have forgotten the power that truth possesses.
On a very simple level, Ron Paul's message is Freedom. Freedom, or as we Catholics like to say, free will, is essential in being a human being. I, for one, do not feel that the government has had my best interests at heart, for as long as I can remember. I have much better places to put my money than in a failing foreign policy, or in the pockets of government officials. It's time to give our country back to our people and elect someone who has faith in us to do it right.
As an American, I want my country back. But as a Catholic, I want my dignity and respect as a human being back. While the other candidates may sit and tickle your ears, I implore you to listen to what Ron Paul has to say. And afterwards you may, as I have, realize that this year I won't be voting for the lesser of two evils.
God Bless.
NT
Video links to Ron Paul
Abortion:
Video 1
Video 2
War and Foreign Policy
Video 1
Video 2
But don't just take my word for it:
Catholics for Ron Paul
posted by: lpioch
December 17, 2007
7:57 pm
From the site (after only a few minutes of searching) ... I'm just not sure what to do with all this:
Ron Paul has positions on some of these issues present serious questions for the committed Catholic voter:
Also
Terri Shiavo question: Would you support legislation that would protect cognitively disabled Americans from being killed through starvation and dehydration? RP - NO
Would you prosecute white collar distributors of hard core pornography that violate our obscenity laws? RP - NO
Would you extend broadcast indecency laws to cable networks? RP - NO
NOT on his website...his "intriguing" conspiracy-theory about the 9/11 attacks. The website covers over it with generalizations, but these are not from the mouth of Ron Paul.
I've not known what to think of Ron Paul. But I get the squiggly feeling that he, too, would be a "lesser" of evils.
posted by: wljewell
December 18, 2007
9:31 am
God loves you .
One thing I can say - the usual pundits are as confused as we are. Does anyone really know what to think of any of the tribe of candidates?
As we near primaries, I am hoping that CE and other Catholic media can wrangle more useful guidance from the likes of Russell Shaw, George Weigel, John Allen, Raymond Arroyo, Fr. Frank Pavone, Chuck Colson, Leon J. Suprenant, Marcellino D’Ambrosio, Cheryl Dickow, Heidi H. Saxton, Mark Shea, Marybeth Hicks, Patrice Fagnant-MacArthur, Daniel Pipes, James Fitzpatrick, CE's own Mr. Allen and his around-the-office staff, the janitor and the window washer, Mary Kochan's grandchildren, etc., about the 'best' candidates - lesser evils as ANY Presidential candidate probably is likely to be.
Remember, I love you, too .
In our delighted glory in our Infant King,
Pristinus Sapienter
(wljewell @catholicexchange.com or ... yahoo.com)
posted by: internate
December 18, 2007
10:18 am
I appreciate your reply lpioch, but I think you miss the bigger picture behind Ron Paul's platform, and that is of personal liberties. Liberties are what set us free, and as a nation, it's the job of the government to protect these liberties. It's a philosophically different view of government than we have today. Presently we look to government, and in this debate the federal government, to solve our problems. We have become accustomed to look to the state to tell us how to live. We've made issues like pornography, marriage, drugs, and life issues the responsibility of the state. Well, look what happens when we do. We have Roe v. Wade, prisons full of people who smoke pot, gays being married, and Terri Shiavo. This is what happens when we put the federal government in charge of our civil liberties. They mess them all up.
Ron Paul's position is that of a limited federal government, and that most matters should be handled by the states themselves. I favor this position much more than the current situation we're in. I think that states need to be able to decide on abortion themselves, not the federal government. I think 'domestic partnerships' should be allowed, but that 'marriage' shouldn't even be a power of the government and should be left up to the churches. I believe that states have a better way of handling drug use, seeing it as a public health issue rather than a criminal issue. And I think you cannot legalize virtue between two consenting adults, as in prostitution.
These are big issues, don't get me wrong. But rather than go down your list, I think it's more important to go after the bigger arguement, and that is of the role of government. I think when we look to government to do anything more than to protect our liberties, we invite the system to turn on ourselves. It's not long when the same government that tells us who we can and can not marry decides that it knows best about who we can and can not worship. At this point in our countries history I do not have much faith in the motives of our leaders. This kind of skepticism is healthy and it keeps us from becoming fascists. I for one, want a leader whose platform isn't based on the latest polls, or on the advice of advisers. I want a candidate who has principle and who has the same skepticism in government as I do. This candidate to me is Ron Paul.
God Bless,
NT
Here's a link that I think will address many of your issues:
Ron Paul on Liberty: 20/20 Interview
posted by: lpioch
December 18, 2007
10:44 am
I think this can be a workable platform IF you're starting from a clean slate. However, we're not. Some things need to be reversed to get back to that clean slate of a limited federal government.
posted by: internate
December 18, 2007
11:09 am
I would agree with you on your sentiments, but I do not think that is a reason why we should accept the situation we're in. As our faith tells us, God makes all things new. If we are to believe that we are the Body of Christ, then we too must make things new. It is now, in Advent, that we see Jesus born as a baby, new to the world once more. This faith does not suddenly stop when I enter into politics.
The truth is, this country did start from a clean slate. These ideas aren't new. In fact, they're the oldest ideals we have. Our founding fathers had experienced the tyranny of the British and new what life without liberty was like. Their solution was the Constitution, and it was what made America a beacon of hope to the rest of the world.
My belief is that we can still be that beacon. I do not believe that all has been lost. And you're right in saying that some things need to be reversed. And the beauty is, they can be. Ron Paul isn't promising a sudden and absolute end to large federal government. He would, after all, need the cooperation of Congress to do so. But as president he would have a position to regulate certain policies and expenditures. An idealist, yes. Naive, no. I would trust myself and my country to him more than any other candidate. I pray we someday will have the chance to do so.
God Bless,
NT
Watch:
This is what hope looks like.
posted by: bhokuto
December 21, 2007
5:26 am
Vote for the "pink energizer bunny" at least it keeps on going.... without corruption and scandal.
If it runs out along the way, well we can step on it...
Peace
posted by: wljewell
December 27, 2007
10:08 am
God loves you .
In part from frustration with more name-known entities . . .
Okay – I am settling on Alan Keyes for presidential candidate for the Republican Party.
As pundit Phil Harris noted in his article titled “Alan Keyes or McHuckaDuncaRomThomPauliani for President” (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PhilHarris/2007/12/26/alan_keyes_or_mchuckaduncaromthompauliani_for_president?page=full&comments=true), Keyes is not only writing, talking and for-long meaning a complete package on issues – he argues rationally from his well-developed positions. He contrasts not only with the Dumbo-crats, but also with his fellow Re-redux-repeat-licans.
Read Mr. (Ambassador) Keyes on the issues here (http://www.alankeyes.com/issues_list.php).
Remember, I love you, too .
In our delighted glory in our Infant King,
Pristinus Sapienter
(wljewell @catholicexchange.com or ... yahoo.com)
posted by: KenB
December 31, 2007
9:44 am
WlJewell, you have beat me to the punch!
As long as you guys are discussing candidates who are good fellows but who have no chance of winning, I really do like (and I am not kidding) Alan Keyes:
http://www.alankeyes.com/
I realize he will not win, but the video clips on his web site from a few of his speeches are well worth a look.
He is correct on the fundamentals, and is quite interesting to listen to.
posted by: Tarheel
January 3, 2008
1:54 pm
Can we vote that we don't like any of these candidates and forbid them to run again and get a new bunch?
Tarheel