AmericanPapist Comments
Fred!
While not perfect, I think he has the best combination of positions.
While the "fire in the belly" charge keeps coming up, I find his low-key style refreshing in this day and age of hyper-campaigning.
Of course, he will not place in the top three in NH as he hasn't really campaigned there. We'll see in what happens in South Carolina.
Thomas,
What is the political mood in Michigan with next week's primary?
"becoming pro-life"?? Hardly.
This Catholic got tired of selling out a long time ago.
I am happy that the Bishops in their recent letter acknoledged the fact that a faithful Catholic is within their moral means of abstaining to vote. This should of been said 25 years ago (or more).
http://soberinebriation.blogspot...-this-
been.html
mtober, how is becoming pro-life "selling out" exactly? I'm not implying one ought to vote for any of these candidates, either.
Brian, I'll be posting on the Michigan situation once the NH primary passes and MI enters the spotlight.
As a Massachusetts resident, I must say, if Governor Romney has become pro-life, he has certainly chosen a strange way of showing it. Similarly, if he is against gay marriage as he claims, he has chosen a strange way of showing that as well. He remains in favor of some unethical forms of embryonic stem cell research, made only empty gestures to stop gay marriage but nothing substantive, and gave Planned Parenthood more power in the state than it previously had. He also helped gay groups get state support for indoctrinated children.
If anyone doubts any of this, I can document it for you. I'm shocked none of the other candidates have jumped on the facts.
Brian Day is right on about Fred Thompson. I too have said that his style is refreshing.
Papist, Obama's record is out there to see. He is even more demonic than Hilary on life issues....if that is possible.
Ron Paul?
I just can't get past his statements that President Lincoln was wrong to fight the Civil War.
I'm with Fred.
Ron Paul seems to make the perfect the enemy of the good. He votes like a liberal because perfect legislation hasn't come past his desk. With Paul at the helm, I'd be afraid of a lame duck president who vetoes most legislation.
brassband, if RP is referring to Lincoln's violations of the constitution to fight the civil war, I think I'd agree with him.
Maria, his motivations for not voting for faulty legislation I think are commendable and as president he would influence legislators to evaluate bills based on - surprise, surprise - the constitution.
brassband, if RP is referring to Lincoln's violations of the constitution to fight the civil war, I think I'd agree with him.
And these violations were what, exactly? If there's one aspect of the paleoconservative ideology that disturbs me, it is its penchant for villifying Lincoln and romantacizing the cause of a bunch of blowhards who decided to pack their things and go home when a guy they didn't like won the election.
As for NH, I'm a Fred guy, but he's not even competing there. So, in this case, I'll hope my second choice, Romney, carries the day, though I'll take either Romney or McCain over Huck and Rudy.
I agree with Paul Zummo.
First, I think this notion that the South obviously had a right to secede is a bunch of hooey. One would think Catholics of all people would understand that just because a compact is entered into voluntarily does not mean that its continuation is necessarily voluntary.
And this infatuation that Ron Paul supporters have with the constitution is, in the end, not an infatuation with the constitution at all, but an infatuation with a form of libertarianism that they have somehow convinced themselves is embodied in the constitution.
Don't get me wrong. A healthy society has a robust libertarian impulse, but our constitution allows for a wide range of political outcomes ranging for a libertarian state to a welfare state.
papist,
my point is that Romney has not become pro-life.
As a Catholic I am tired of selling out for candidates who say they are Pro-life when really they are not. Romney is not pro-life period. He may have become less pro-choice - but certainly not a man that truly defends, nor do I have any assurance from his record that he would work to defend life.
I think Catholics need to stop settling for partial pro-choice candidates - and demand from this country what every persons deserves - right to life. We are the most powerful voting group out there.
Couple of tangents: I agree with you on Ron Paul. His track record on life issues are impeccable. He is a man of his words. Getting down to brass tacks he is a true republican.
Lincoln was in the wrong concerning the Civil war. I agree with you again. It is documented that Lincoln believed that white people were superior to black people. As a matter of fact as a legislator for the state of Illinois he sought to have blacks deported from our country. The Civil War was primarily about land-ownership, and self-governance apart from a centralized federal regime, not slavery. The bottom line is that the southern states had a right to secede from the Union. Dr. Thomas Woods Jr. has written a good book on American History titled: "The Politically Correct Guide to American History" it is a great book, and he covers in more detail what I have briefly expounded here. Everyone should read it. Ron Paul by the way wrote a brief accolade that is on the back of the book.
Currently given everything that is out there - I do not see how Ron Paul is not heads above the rest with the Catholic Concensus. Giving power back to the States in my opinion would eradicate Abortion on a grand scale - I would even go as far as to say half or more of the States.
I'm out.
Thanks, Mike. I'd also add that, even if one grants that secession is a legal right - which I don't - it's hard to argue that the South had a long train of abuses to complain about. In fact, one can argue that up to the election of Lincoln, the South had gotten its way on the slavery question far more than the North. Lincoln had not even taken office by the time 7 states had seceded, and there really wasn't anything in his platform to justify secession. He was, after all, anti-slavery but not an abolitionist.
Anyway, so how about that NH primary?
mtober:
Setting aside one's ambivalence towards Romney's conversion - a stance I disagree with but at least understand - what exactly in Romney's rhetoric or public policy statement indicates that he is "partially pro-choice?"
And I'll just ignore the stuff about the Civil War, though I'll simply say that Lincoln turned away from his colonization proposals during his presidency. I like Thomas Woods, usually, but he's off his rocker when it comes to the Civil War.
In like, 1992, Clinton won 3% of the Iowa caucus. So what does it really mean anyways if somebody like Huckabee wins it? Or Obama?
Well, it seems to me that if you believe in the right of the Confederacy to break the Union, then we probably don't have a whole lot of grounds for agreement on a wide range of topics.
I think if Lincoln had not defended the Union, this continent, and indeed the world, would be a very different place.
I believe that he did the right thing, and I'm not interested in electing a President who would disagree with that proposition.
Why is it that so many Catholics, after they criticize Democrats, are always quick to say, "But that doesn't mean I'm a Republican!" A Catholic is free to be a Republican or a Democrat, or a Libertarian or a Green (though perhaps not a Communist or an anarchist) provided that he accepts only those points of the platform which are not contrary to Catholic teaching, and that he seeks above all else to follow his [properly informed] conscience.
Cody nailed it.
Here is a start on Romney. He certainly is not pro-life. See here: http://massresistance.org/romney/
Also - we could debate till the cows come home on whether the south had a right to secede from the Union. It is a debatable point - I feel the evidence we have from the unraveling of this country indicates that the states had a right to secede from the Union.
Also - the South was not trying to break the Union. They were excercising a right to leave it.
Woods is certainly not off his rocker when it comes to the Civil War.
I do not believe for a second that this Country is better off because of Lincoln. Yes it would be a different place, but there is good argument that it would be much better.
Lastly - I think we could agree on a lot. I am assuming we could agree on all the life issues, and I am assuming we could agree that this country is being run in a way that is not consistent with the Constitution of the United States. When rubber meets the road, Ron Paul has stepped out and clearly indicated that he understands that, and has plan to get that back on track.
Mtober:
I read the link, and it does not really make the case that Romney is now only partially pro-life. For example, it says that Romney opposes a constitutional amendment barring abortion. Well, I'm sorry, I happen to agree with the governor here. I also have to note that their attack on Mitt Romney's actions regarding gay marriage include the argument that Romney should have ignored a Court ruling, citing as precedent . . . Abraham Lincoln. You better be careful of your sources, they seem to think highly of Lincoln themselves.
I think we could agree on a lot. I am assuming we could agree on all the life issues,
Probably so.
and I am assuming we could agree that this country is being run in a way that is not consistent with the Constitution of the United States.
This is a bit hyperbolic. There are aspects of the way our country is run that are not in accord with the Constitution's intent, but they go way beyond the current administration, and they are entrenched aspects of our modern polity which I doubt any person has the ability to change.
Anyway, I wish we had more time to debate the Civil War stuff - that's my favorite topic. But I think we've threadjacked enough.
"Why is it that so many Catholics, after they criticize Democrats, are always quick to say, "But that doesn't mean I'm a Republican!"
Because so many people presume that any criticism of one party is actually motivated by one's prior affinity to the other prominant party. It's a logical fallacy, to be sure, but one that I've grown so tired of being subjected to that I now explicitly rule it out.
I don't endorse any political party. On Catholic Answer forms we aren't allowed to say the following:
1. can't use the term demoncrats
2 can't discuss political candidates
3. can't use the phrase "anti-bush syndrome"
4. if i criticize Bush and one defends them i can't use the term "neo-conservative propaganda". cause it's "insulting".
5. we aren't allowed to use the religion of peace in quotation marks when referring to Islam.
Things just got so politically correct that I couldn't take anymore. So I'm happier away from CAF forums. You can't police charity.
Paul,
You don't need to be a fan of Abe Lincoln to see Mitt Romney's deception, and his sins against life are greater than not wanting a Constitutional amendment. I don't think an amendment is needed for the Supreme Court to see that a right to life is already found in the Constitution. Mitt Romney does not support an end to abortion across the nation.
Under Romneycare, the health care plan in MA (passed after his pro-life conversion), Planned Parenthood sits on the board for the program, and every citizen under the plan is entitled to an abortion for $50. He did not have to do this. As late as December 5 2007, in an interview with Katie Couric, Governor Romney has been in favor of embryonic stem cell research, as long as the state does not fund it. Similarly, he did not enforce a law on the books that gives Catholic hospitals a right to conscience but instead went along with the Dems in forcing them to dispense the morning after pill.
On the gay marriage front, MassResistance is not saying that he should have ignored the case but done what the Constitution says his role is...nothing. Here are some quotes for you..."The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for." (PART THE FIRST, Article XX). The court could not legalize gay marriage. Or from Goodridge itself: ""Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief." The court did not strike down the marriage laws or change them. You see, here in MA, the courts have little power. They cannot even force the Legislature to follow the Constitution and force a vote on Constitutionally obligated votes like proposed amendments. "A repeal can be accomplished only by affirmative vote of both branches and approval by the governor." (Dinan v. Swig, 223 Mass. 516, 519 (1916) The Court did not legalize gay marriage. The Legislature failed to act. According to the Court itself in a December 2006 case, this means it becomes a dead issue. However, Governor Romney decided to UNCONSTITUTIONALLY act and issue an executive order on gay marriage.
The man is either stupid or a deceiver. For the sake of his soul, I hope it's the former, and if so, he should not be leading our country.
I am aware of the source getting the slavery thing wrong with Abe Lincoln. There is much at the site that is clear that Romney is less pro-choice than some of the others.
My point was to provide enough evidence that Romney is far from being pro-life.
As a matter of fact - this is the one area where Romney and Ron Paul may agree - that abortion should be settled in the states. I made that point earlier in the threads. However, the civil war was not about slavery, and Lincoln is far from a hero-liberator. One of the things I find interesting is that both Lee and Jackson were against slavery. Lee even threatened his career for the Virginia's right to secession.... Hmmm - slavery the cause of the Civil war...uh I don't think so. The War between the States has always been clear to me that it was more about Northern greed which spawned unnecessary agression, and not slavery.
The bottom line is there is much at that cite that convicts Romney.
And yes your are right, we have threadjacked enought - maybe we could set up a Blog that deals with virtually fighting the Civil War all over again, this time the South Winning and rebuilding a differing America just to see if a men like Ron Paul and Mit Romney run for President in 2008.
owever, the civil war was not about slavery, and Lincoln is far from a hero-liberator.
Whatever. I pretty much stopped reading after this. This is, at best, revisionist history poppycock to make the south's cause less egregious than it was.
"I do not believe for a second that this Country is better off because of Lincoln. Yes it would be a different place, but there is good argument that it would be much better."
That's quite the fascinating opinion, but I'd like to know why you think that our part of the continent being divided into two or more states and the division of such resources would have made the Union or the Confederacy better. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison worried about such splits in the Federalist Papers. I'd also like to know how a race of people being enslaved for several more decades and then their eventual subjugation under Jim Crow laws once it was realized tractors were more profitable than slaves would make the Confederacy a better place. Check out the film Confederate States of America sometime if you're interested in revisionist history. It's really damn good and based on actual documents.
"However, the civil war was not about slavery, and Lincoln is far from a hero-liberator. One of the things I find interesting is that both Lee and Jackson were against slavery. Lee even threatened his career for the Virginia's right to secession.... Hmmm - slavery the cause of the Civil war...uh I don't think so. The War between the States has always been clear to me that it was more about Northern greed which spawned unnecessary agression, and not slavery."
As a person from Kansas, where the Civil War informally began in 1854, slavery was most definitely the cause of the Civil War. Lincoln was elected on the GOP platform of keeping slavery from expanding to new territories, which seemed threatening to the Southern states who then seceeded. Thus, slavery, and its effect on Southern economics, was the cause of secession, and Lincoln was committed to keeping the Union together, which the South then fought against.
Northern aggression? Fingers are pointed over who was worse during the Bleeding Kansas era, but if we talk about Ft. Sumter, the Confederates fired first. That's either treason, which the Lincoln Administration argued it was for international legal reasons and which the Constitution gives the government the right to address, or an act of war as the South, wanting assistance of Britain argued. Which ever way it is, Lincoln acted decisively and within the bounds of the Constitution.
You should ask black people if Lincoln is a "hero-liberator." He alone is the reason why black people voted en masse for Republicans until FDR came around. Did he have ulterior motives when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation? Sure, but he issued it anyway when many didn't want him to. And as of January 1, 1863, the Union cause went beyond keeping the nation together--a cause many Northerners were losing interest in--and added the moral imperative of freeing a people. And ex-slaves and their succeeding generations loved him for it.
Professional historians consistently place Lincoln at or near the top of lists of the best presidents. If Lincoln
didn't do any good for this nation, no president did. He's not one of four faces on a mountainside for nothing.
By the way, Robert Lee both owned slaves and opposed Virginia's secession. Just sayin'.
Oh, and congratulations to my boy John McCain.
"Obama seems slightly less offensive to principles of Catholic social teaching than Clinton."
What makes you think that?
Just an assumption/impression. Clinton seems to think herself a better pro-abort than Obama, for instance. I'm more than open to hearing different.
I wonder if General Grant owned slaves?
Sumpter was not within the rights of the Constitution especially if the State had formally seceded. There is good and substantial argument for the right of secession (whether you agree with it or not - the issue is clearly debatable - even among the best historians). Where the rubber meets the road is with the Tenth Amendment. The tenth amendment states that any power not delegated to the federal government by the states, and not prohibited to the states by the constitution, remained a right of the states, or the people. The Constitution is silent on the issue of secession. Since the states never delegated any power to the federal government to suppress secession, then it holds that secession remained a reserved right of the states. Even though he did not believe in secession himself, James Buchanan for the most part allowed seven states to secede in peace. Why? Because he also did not believe that the federal government had the right to coerce a seceding state. Also - If Lincoln was in the right why did his decision provoke four other southern states to secede (Tennesse, Virginia, North Carolina, and Arkansas)? Certainly this can't be over slavery - but rather the insane notion that Lincoln was sending 75,000 troops into the south over a scuffle at Sumpter - where there wasn't one casualty.
Virginia - before they ratified the Constitution - included a clause in the right to secede should the federal government ever become oppressive. Virginia cited this clause when they made the decision to secede in 1861. As far as Lee and Jackson - they both considered slavery a moral evil. You are right in saying that Lee had been an opponent of secession. But that begs the bigger question. If he did not support it, why would he fight for Virginia? Because he knew that the federal government waging war on the state was even worse.
Many historians agree that Slavery was well on its way out. Abolutionism - which gained ground - was not out of sympathy for the black people as it was so much - a lust on a part of many for land ownership - most of which was in the South.
Again - for a good overview read Dr. Thomas Woods Book - "The Politically Correct Guide to American History" it is very good. Please don't come back with well - his Civil War stuff is not good simply because you think he is off his rocker. The book gives a great primer and head start on the Civil War and it is backed by many other valid sources. Woods is a solid Catholic and a good scholar. Most people don't like to hear the truth about the Civil War because in my opinion they have been spoon fed a barral of half-truths for over a century.
If that doesn't work - it looks like the War will live on - at least from the viewpoint of History, and we will have to agree to disagree. Its been real.
Go Ron Paul!!
Just because South Carolina had seceded doesn't mean that Ft. Sumter went with it. Thus, when the Confederacy fired on Union property, that was an act of war or rebellion, depending on one's view. So Lincoln was well within his constitutional powers to wage a campaign either against a foreign enemy or insurrectionists. So if they were within their rights to secede, the Confederacy's decision to commence war against the Union might very well be one of the greatest political/military blunders of all time.
There, of course, is precedent to the secession issue. South Carolina considered seceding once before in 1832-33, and a Southern president wasn't going to let that happen and was willing to use force to prevent that. The Nullification Crisis, of course, isn't a perfect analogy, but I think it's significant nonetheless. Andrew Jackson was willing to use federal troops to put South Carolina back in line; I'm not certain Lincoln was necessarily ready to wage war until the South started it. Lots of Northerners held the opinion of good riddance to those immoral slave-holding states. But again, the South blundered.
Is the right to secede actually in Virginia's constitution? I know that the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 declared the power to nullify laws, which South Carolina used 35 years later, but I never knew that Virginia expressly gave themselves the right to secede. I hold that Lee wasn't as upset with the federal government waging a just war--see the Ft. Sumter argument--as much as he was loyal to Virginia. Though I probably don't need to tell you, given your extensive breadth of knowledge on the subject, when Americans went abroad, they more often than not didn't say they were Americans but rather Virginians or New Yorkers. For the nation's first seventy years, every state was more interested in itself than the the Union until after the Civil War, due largely because guys like Jefferson and Madison in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves of 1798 argued the Constitution was simply a compact rather than a contract. Lee was a Virginian first and foremost, and that was a loyalty he wouldn't betray. According to his Wikipedia page, he privately ridiculed the Confederacy and denounced secession as revolution.
I agree that many believed slavery was on its way out and that abolitionism was actually little more than a fringe movement, but I don't buy the lust for Southern land when there was so much more land to be had west of the Mississippi. The Homestead Act of 1862 practically gave land away to anyone who wanted it.
If I find time to read Woods' book, I'll try it out. I've never accused him of being off his rocker because I've never heard of him. Forgive me, for my first Master's degree covers 20th Century American history, and what I'm rolling with really stems from what I learned while getting my B.A. in history, so my knowledge on the Civil War is hardly complete. But this has been quite the enjoyable c
conversation. I've got to say that I've never known anyone who holds such views, but debate is good! I think it would be fair to say that you're quite the Jeffersonian while I'm more of a Hamiltonian, and yeah, those guys didn't get much resolved, either! :)
Some info on Catholicism and the Old South. It includes some of the reasons why things in this country would be better off if the South won:
http://www.catholicism.org/catho...cism-
south.html
Also some other very interesting information at the Blog Roman Christendom titled "Tales from the Old South: Jefferson Davis and Blessed Pius IX"
http://romanchristendom.blogspot...rson-
davis.html
"This country" would be better off as in the United States or the CSA? Because we wouldn't be one country.
sorry - I didn't mean "This country" - but rather that one can make a good argument that it would have been better - if the South had won. However - because the South did not win, we cannot know for sure, therfore we would find ourselves wasting time speculating. Nontheless - I also found more interesting inforamation on the blog Dappled Things:
http://donjim.blogspot.com/2007/...on-of-
jews.html
Commenting by HaloScan
