AmericanPapist Comments
All I know is that this just really stinks. There isn't a pro-life candidate to vote for.
From a pro-life standpoint, we don't have a perfect candidate but we do have a clear difference, no matter who the Dem.s chose.
Makes the congressional races all the more crucial.
Wouldn't it be cool to seat a congress that wouldn't send another embryonic stem cell bill? If we stay home, we could end up with federal funding for abortions, judges who want to keep the status quo, "right to die" provisions in Medicare and who knows what.
it would have been nice if Huckabee, never having a real chance anyway, stepped aside as graciously as Mitt Romney did today.
I hope Romney runs again. I would be honored to vote for him.
...I should clarify that, if Huckabee weren't taking delegates from Romney, we would certainly have a conservative nominee now.
Half of his speech I liked and the other half was kind of annoying. He would say something inspiring and then a paragraph later would say something useless.
Saying that "dependency is poison" is a bit extreme. We're all dependent on one another, even people from other countries. Sure, having a social welfare state isn't the greatest, but saying that the culture necessarily thrives on everyone being islands is a bit absurd.
I agree with him on all the government spending stuff, and I liked his defense of morality.
I guess I wasn't impressed to the same degree you were Thomas.
I hope McCain picks a good running mate.
All I know is that this just really stinks. There isn't a pro-life candidate to vote for.
Ron Paul is decidedly pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage, pro-home-schooling, pro-peace, etc.
"Ron Paul is decidedly pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage, pro-home-schooling, pro-peace, etc."
The Kucinich of the GOP has a snowball's chance in hell of winning. You forgot to add that.
I disagree with the premise that Romney would be winning if Huckabee were not around.
I think that much of the conservatives' recent affection for Romney stems from the fact that he is the un-McCain candidate.
The fact is that Romney did not catch on in Iowa, despite all of the money that he spent there. Huckabee is a very charming and affable fellow, but he had very little money and has some significant negatives as a candidate . . . yet he was able to beat Romney in Iowa. Doesn't really speak to well for Romney's skill or appeal as a candidate, does it?
As for the pro-life issue, McCain right now has a much better pro-life record than George H.W. Bush did when Ronald Reagan selected him as a running mate.
And with regard to those conservatives who now plan to vote Democrat, or to sit this one out . . . well I hope you will re-think that before November, and I hope you will consider the number of unborn babies who will be certainly condemned to death by four or eight years of a Clinton or Obama administration.
The Kucinich of the GOP has a snowball's chance in hell of winning. You forgot to add that.
The same snowball's chance that Abraham Lincoln had, apparently, and we all know how that turned out. Now that Romney's out, many of his supporters are not at all interested in McCain, nor are they interested in Huckabee. Ron Paul supporters are seeing former-Romney supporters coming over. And think of this, the more that you parrot what the media says about Ron Paul not having a chance, the more you participate in derailing that chance (which it seems VERY likely what they want to happen).
This is just the primaries. Don't vote for the lesser of evils, vote for who you _want_ to be the nominee. There'll be plenty of time for nose-holding later if things don't work out the way you want, I promise you that.
Oh, and one more thing... Giuliani was supposed to be the frontrunner. Romney had lots of momentum. Sure looks like a hot day for those snowballs.
"This is just the primaries. Don't vote for the lesser of evils, vote for who you _want_ to be the nominee. There'll be plenty of time for nose-holding later if things don't work out the way you want, I promise you that."
I do like that take. I'd also like to state that I'm not opposed to all that Paul espouses, so I don't have some visceral hatred for the man. The only thing in your post that doesn't work is the Lincoln analogy, because even though the party was split between numerous candidates kind of like today, a nominating convention is nothing like what we have now. If you get a chance--and perhaps you already have--read the first part of *Team of Rivals* by Doris Kearns Goodwin and how Lincoln went from a nobody to the Republican nominee. Furthermore, I've read a very persuasive argument from Fareed Zakaria on how primaries have given us worse candidates than what we would get through nominating conventions like the old days.
Nathan:
I know a thing or two about Lincoln's nomination but I'll definitely try and check out that book, sounds quite interesting. For others that don't know, Lincoln went into the Republican national convention with (if I remember correctly) only the 22 delegates from his home state of Illinois running against better-known candidates with more delegates at what basically worked out to be a brokered convention. At the end of the third ballot, he had secured 235 and 1/2 votes (he only needed 233) and won the nomination. Truly amazing.
Thanks for the tip, Nathan.
Yours in Christ,
CapitolKnight
p.s.- And as for the current primary/caucus system, I think it's awful.
Commenting by HaloScan
