National Review Online has a fair, balanced, and reasonable editorial on our looming primary decision.
While giving credit to Newt’s positive characteristics, it has come to the same conclusion that I have. Not Newt.
I, like many other conservatives, have spent months searching for the anybody but Romney candidate. Newt’s comeback in the polls after a disastrous and what I thought fatal start is as startling as its effect on me. I am now searching for the anybody but Newt candidate.
Look, Newt is a smart fella and I can even relegate the marital peccadilloes to the past, but Newt is still Newt.
Romney will disappoint me, I know that. But Newt can/will destroy us (conservatives). Newt will blow up, either as a candidate or as a President and he will take the entire conservative movement with him. His hubris and his flightiness will end up alienating just about everyone. You know how I know this? Because that is what Newt always does.
While he had successes as Speaker, he ended up the most unpopular figure in the country, both left and right. As a pundit, he has done the same thing. And as a candidate, the same thing. Newt blows up. That is what Newt does.
Romney will disappoint me, I know that. He says many of the right things now, but his record is the stuff of schizoid legend. But even if Romney only believes half of what he now claims to believe and the rest is pandering, I might take that. At least the pandering recognizes there is a base he must satisfy. Newt doesn’t care because he knows he is smarter than me and you. It is we who must change our opinion before Newt changes his.
Romney is no conservative, I know that. But I think that I prefer the guy who at least pretends to be.
I am still a supporter of Santorum. Notwithstanding a dramatic showing in Iowa, I must accept that 4% is 4% and I might not have that choice. But if I had to choose between Newt and Mitt, I think I choose Mitt. Call it risk mitigation.
December 15, 2011 at 5:10 pm
Archbold,
I would love to see you give anything resembling a fair shot to Ron Paul. Your straw-man, ad hominem, polemical, dismissive comments towards him show you to be incredibly small and intellectually dishonest.
Ron Paul has some of the clearest arguments based on some of the most reasonable economic and political philosophies I have ever read or heard, and I have a degree in philosophy and I studied theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. Basically, I am a strong Catholic who is passionate about the common good, and I have found that the best pursuit of that common good would be by voting for him– just about everything he says makes perfect sense. That is, if you can get over yourself long enough to actually approach it.
I seriously doubt you're man enough to actually handle that though. I'm seriously disappointed in a website I once thought was about the pursuit of Truth.
December 15, 2011 at 5:38 pm
Paul: With respect, you seem to take this very seriously. Why then do you have no problem with nuclear annihilation?
Do you really think that it is right and just to allow millions of innocent lives to be lost just because some of us are too tired to stand up and oppose evil? Did you learn while studying theology that sometimes Satan take a break? Did they teach you in Rome that after the Iraq war is when peace would rein on the earth?
Do you really think that pretending something isn't there makes it disappear?
The "conversation" about RP borders on the ridiculous and it is hard to take his supporters seriously at all.
But there are many good thoughtful people who support him for the same reasons that people supported Obama: Hope.
They HOPE for no more wars. They HOPE for less government, for a stronger economy. But what they all seem to have in common is an ignorance (willful or otherwise) of the realities of the world we are in.
No offense, but your degrees in Theology and Philosophy don't necessarily qualify you to claim higher ground assessment of the serious economic and national security positions Paul takes – which are ludicrous. They are beyond silly. They don't even call for a serious response! (Yet here I am trying anyway. For the sake of the world)
It is very tough to respond to RPaulists whose rabid ignorance of national security and moral welfare concerns is so extreme. It sure is very temping to merely call him a poopy pants and be done with it. The RP arguments are so extremely at odds with common sense and reality. It is all very much wishful thinking. (I say this as a person who actually does agree with many things that Ron Paul says. But where he is wrong, he is SO VERY wrong that is renders every other position he takes meaningless)
If it is the truth that you are looking for, I submit to you that you are the one who is choosing to look the other way. The truth is as stated. Ron Paul policies will bring about the worst destruction the world has ever seen.
Ron Paul's policies will lead to further moral decay, at time when what we need is firm moral leadership. Not someone who says that legalizing crack is ok. Not someone who believes in legalizing prostitution.
6 shots to the stomach:
I've heard that's what it takes to cure rabies. Maybe this would allow for more clear-headed thinking about the destructive, immoral and asinine nature of Paul's positions.
Hope, I'm afraid, is not enough.
December 15, 2011 at 6:25 pm
OK, Used to Post – let's clear up some of your strange statements.
1. Ron Paul is not in favor of legalizing prostitution. It is not a matter for the federal government to handle. States handle it. That is his position. Quit lying about him.
2. Same with drugs. Are you even aware that there were no federal drug laws until the 1930s? Are you aware that the "war on drugs" has been an abysmal failure which has resulted in drug gangs, millions of non-violent offenders incarcerated, and a huge increase in the police state and violation of civil rights?
2. Iran may or may not be developing a nuclear weapon. The recent claims about them developing a weapon are re-hashes of the same old war-mongering element in the U.S. that led to the Iraq fiasco. The war-mongers were saying the exact same thing years ago – "Iran will have a nuclear weapon within 3 years", blah blah blah and on and on. No real evidence to support that.
3. Did you know that no country with a nuclear weapon has ever been attacked by the U.S.? Could that be a reason that Iran might want one? Then they will have confidence that the U.S. will not attack them, like 1953 when their democratically elected leader was overthrown by the U.S. and the puppet Shah was installed as dictator. How would you like it if your government was overthrown by China and a puppet installed? Would you be licking the Chinese boots? Why do you expect the Iranians to lick your boots?
3. In your world, some countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons and others are not. Why is that? Who decides that? Why does the war-mongering, child-killing, homo-marrying U.S. get to have nuclear weapons but other sovereign nations do not? Are you aware that the U.S. is the ONLY country to have ever used nuclear weapons, and against a civilian population at that? How disgusting is that?
3. Your warmongering candidates are the ones who will result in more destruction worldwide – exactly what we have seen in the last 10 years with the war-mongering Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Obama and their corporate-government-media fascist establishment. All this warmongering hatred of anyone who does not lick the
American boots is what makes the U.S. and the world a less safe place.
4. Are you aware of the moral rot that is
American society right now? Child-killing, homo-marriage, and the whole ends-justifies-the means morality of a huge majority of the population. And you think the moral, upright, Christian gentleman Ron Paul is going to make this worse? Get a grip on reality, man.
December 15, 2011 at 6:50 pm
Thank you for the kind and charitable remarks to my previous comments gentlemen.
Seriously come up with a few intelligible things to say instead of referencing unicorns and magic.
What is your answer to the abortion question? Do abortions increase or decrease when an alleged pro life candidate takes office?
I am not a Paulbot, or any other word you can think of, and I doubt you would have the stones to say things like that to my face, it's so easy to make fun of people and say horrid things on the internet when you don't have to look them in the eye and account for your words.
December 15, 2011 at 6:53 pm
Gross. Newt and Romney? Are those really our only choices? Then Obama wins and we have another four years of exactly what we deserve. I'm sad for our country, but I can't say I am surprised.
December 15, 2011 at 6:57 pm
I apologize for being off about the amount of money RP receives from the military, is is only 71%.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/9044-ron-paul-campaign-receive-most-military-donations
December 15, 2011 at 7:04 pm
it's so easy to make fun of people and say horrid things on the internet when you don't have to look them in the eye and account for your words.
It's so easy to make hysterical claims and hide behind a false bravado when you don't even have the courage to put your own name to your opinions.
December 15, 2011 at 7:11 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
December 15, 2011 at 7:27 pm
1. RP is in favor of legalizing drugs and prostitution. Hiding behind the statement "Let the states decide" doesn't make it not so. Some states may decide to legalize. The guise of states rights doesn't obviate the moral obligation to oppose the immoral at all levels.
2. same
3. Just plain historically ignorant.
3. Of course Iran is building a nuclear weapon. Typical hide your head in the sand isolationist crap. Gamble with someone else's life.
3. you can't count
4. Why don't I want some countries to have nuclear weapons? Because some countries will use them to kill people. Duh!
5. Moral rot- yeah. It's everywhere. That why I oppose it – and RP's policies that would spread it around even more.
what's immoral is not opposing evil, and in fact helping it.
December 15, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Actually Mr Zummo, as I found out while posting on The American Catholic a couple of months ago, it so easy for you, Donald McCleary, and the other posters to hysterically damm someone at a bigot because I dared to question Martin Luther King's being worthy of a memorial in Washington, DC. I rightly pointed ot that MLK was a communist dupe, had communist advisors around him, was a sexual tomcat, a plagiarist, and incited violence by his so-called non-violence tactics wherever he went. Instead of doing a little fact checking, you and the other posters mindlessly chanted the "MLK was a great man who fought against racism mantra". Baloney! He was a race-pimping conman like Sharpton and Jackson. If you can put aside your pride for a few minutes, go to http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html and read about the real MLK, as opposed to the unicorns and magic one you defended. Maybe then you get a dose of that reality, you will be able to understand why Charlemagde, Geronimo, and myself don't believe in the lies pushed by the neo-con establishment. BTW, you can click on my blogger thingee, and get my real name. I don't hide Paul and I don't make false accusations of racism like some of your friends do.
December 15, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Gee, darn, a nutjob racist is upset about being called a nutjob racist. Shame on me.
December 15, 2011 at 8:07 pm
To the contrary, Mitt implemented same-sex marriage here in MA with no legislative basis. The Court didn't order him to do anything, but ordered the legislature to change the law (how constitutional is that?) When the legislature declined to do so, Mitt ordered town clerks to issue licenses to same-sex couples, at his own initiative.
December 15, 2011 at 8:27 pm
Mr Zummo, did you go to that Lew Rockwell link? Also Mr Zummo, namecalling (nutjob racist) is a sign of weakness. Please deal with the facts that I or any of the commentator bring up that upset you rather than resorting to such immature and childish tactics.
December 15, 2011 at 8:40 pm
Mr Zummo, did you go to that Lew Rockwell link?
There are only so many hours in the day, and going to a website that I regard as being on par with Daily Kos and Democratic Underground is not how I choose to spend those hours.
Also Mr Zummo, namecalling (nutjob racist) is a sign of weakness.
To paraphrase what one of you Paulbots once said to me, it's not namecalling if what is stated is based on facts.
December 15, 2011 at 8:44 pm
There is nothing historically ignorant about geronimo's statement. please pick up a real history book or watch something other than fox news.
December 15, 2011 at 8:50 pm
STILL won't vote for Romney UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
As for the claim someone made in the comments that Romney has been conservative for the last 5 or 6 years, what a jole. When did he EVER govern as a conservative? He NEVER held conservative positions until, conveniently, the day he decided to seek the GOP nomination. He is a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights liberal Republican who is seeking the nomination of a mostly conservative party. Of course he's going to pretend to stake out sorta "conservative" positions (yet curiously won't do anything to try to reach out to conservative grassroots voters).
I could vote for any of the other candidates (although having to hold my nose to vote for some of them … such as Newt), but will stay home or vote 3rd party rather than vote for Romney.
Also, I have never been a Ron Paul supporter, but I am getting a little tired of the sort of Paul bashing that goes on in these threads. He's not at the top of my list (or even 3rd or 4th on my list), but I'd gladly crawl over glass to vote for Ron Paul over Barry Obama. Meanwhile, you couldn't pay me to vote for that fraud Romney.
December 15, 2011 at 8:53 pm
"jole" should be "joke"
December 15, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Maggie: You are incorrect. It is wildly historically ignorant, not just of the history of the region and the relationships between the state actors but of the larger context of global international relations, war, the causes of war, as well as of the Shia religion and the motivations of man.
Perhaps you agree with some who believe that US actions cause the hatred with leads to violence against the US. If so, this would mean that you are incorrect about that as well. Perhaps you are also unacquainted with the 12th Imam? Once you have become familiarized with who he is and how he is supposedly to come about, you may come to realize how US actions in the region and the world have nothing to do with why Iran WILL USE a nuclear weapon against us and others.
Until then, as you remain uninformed, perhaps you should be intellectually honest about it, and instead of jumping on someone else's bandwagon and banging their drum, just, you know, sit tight, until you are in a better position to give an opinion.
As for me: I've over 3200 volumes of nothing but history in my home at the moment (Yes I've read them), I've worked in this field, lived in these areas, know and have good friendships with these people, speak some of their languages and I have a long personal history of craving nothing more than solutions to end the horrors of war. Which I have seen and never want to see again.
Which is why, the last place I want to see it is here in the US, when we will have no power grid left, radioactive fallout, no ability to rebuild the power grid, millions of deaths and everything that will go along with that.
(I rarely have a moment for TV. But bashing Fox news does nothing for your arguments. Last time I had it on I was watching Ron Paul give ANOTHER interview.)
December 15, 2011 at 9:22 pm
@Jay Anderson:
It isn't "Paul Bashing" to point out that a vote for him is a vote for an Iranian nuclear weapon and to further point out that it will be used to kill us. Rather, it is a moral obligation to say so.
We all have a moral duty to cast our votes with a properly formed conscience. I can not fathom how any Catholic could vote for someone who takes such a position, and then sort of nonchalantly risks the lives of millions. That is "unconscionable".
Many, prefer to live in ignorance or to simply not believe in the facts, because… that is easier. Who the heck wants any more conflict? I sure as heck don't. It would be WAAAAY easier for me to support the "let just shake hands and I know we'll be friends" approach, but that would ignore reality of what is happening and what is about to happen.
We all have a duty to face the truth – even though right now the truth really sucks.
December 15, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Tthere is nothing historically ignorant about saying that the U.S. overthrew the democratically elected president of Iran in 1953 and set up an authoritarian regime which was in place until 1979.
I said nothing about why Iran might want a nuclear weapon. All I said was that there was nothing HISTORICALLY inaccurate about geronimo's statement about Iran. Speculating about motivations behind use of nuclear weapons is largely based on opinion.