AmericanPapist Comments
As little chance as he had, I was still a Ron Paul supporter for the most part. I think now that Rick Santorum is pushing Mitt Romney though, I would be more inclined to support Romney.
There's be alot of questions about the sincerity of Romney's switching opinions on abortion and stem cells, but Santorum seems to be the most Orthodox personal who is faithful to the teachings of the church when it comes to politics.
If he has enough confidence in Romney to be soliciting for him on TV and radio, then I think I have a little more confidence in Romney's motives being authentic.
Be careful using only one poll to discern where the candidates stand. Although Rasmussen has Romney and McCain tied nationally, the RCP average all of the major polls conducted as of late has McCain ahead of Romney by more than twelve percentage points (34.6-22.2).
Also, Travis, Romney has Santorum supporting him, but the other solidly orthodox member of the Senate, Sam Brownback (R-KS) long ago endorsed McCain. McCain has a lifetime rating of 0% of NARAL, and has never had to switch his positions on abortion. Granted, he did originally support embryonic stem-cell research, but Brownback explained to him the ethical and scientific details of the issue, and he now supports only research conduced on adult cells.
I personally don't understand how this system doesn't get close to disenfranchising the democratic voter, but that could be purely my own ignorance). These delegates count for 800 votes.
The GOP has the same system, but doesn't use the term 'superdelegate' (I'm not sure the Democratic party formally uses it either, it just something the press has adopted).
Superdelegates are all elected in some way or fashion -- they either elected by Party members (State party Chairs and Vice Chairs, members of the Democratic National Committee) or elected in general elections (Democratic Members of Congress and Governors).
It's hard to take Santorum's endorsement seriously after he endorsed pro-choice Arlen Specter over pro-life Pat Toomey for US Senate a few years back.
John, I sympathize. I really do. But I'm beginning to think Santorum is nearing the time when we (I?) will have to say, "He's paid the price, dearly, for that blunder, now let's hear what he has to say again". imho.
I don't like McCain (blocking conservative judicial nominees and trying to end free speech for Americans at election time and supporting embryonic stem cell research)and I don't like Romney. Romney, coming from Massachusetts, can't be conservative on social issues. What about marriage? As a Mormon, he can't be too critical of homosexuals pretending to be married. Also, a president who believes he is going to become a god when he dies and rule a planet is too weird and irrational. Look who elected him Governor. No one has won the presidency from Massachusetts in more than 30 years. Neither have much chance of beating Hillary, but especially not Romney. What lousy candidates! Maybe tigers can change their stripes...? In politics that does not happen to often. Also if McCain wins, his Vice-President had better be a pro-life, conservative. Pray everyone!
Where did this belief that McCain blocked conservative judges come from? By constructing the "Gang of 14," numerous judges that Democrats were going to block got confirmed. I bet Alito would've been shot down without the Gang of 14. Sure, some nominees haven't made it, but not everyone does. I once read that the Republicans during the Clinton years were notorious for blocking his nominees. What goes around comes around, except when McCain is providing a little leadership that the White House hasn't exhibited since the President was on a Navy ship declaring the "Mission Accomplished."
Ah....Nathan
McCain's own words. He said Alito was
"too conservative". I'll take that to the voting booth.
So? He voted for him, didn't he? He liked Roberts a lot. Oh, and again, if the Gang of 14 wouldn't have existed, Alito wouldn't be on the bench.
This is one Catholic in New York who is sticking with Ron Paul in tomorrow's prez primary.
He's closer than any of the other candidates to the consistent-life ethic.
The Democratic superdelegates go back to the 70s. In the 72 cycle the Dems did a reform in reaction to 68's fiasco that required every state to have a primary or caucus to determine the national delegates.
The result, a lot of party VIPs got cut out (which was the idea, that they didn't get automatically selected & to give the power of selection to the people not the party VIPs). Needless to say they weren't too happy about their loss of power. Eventually they came up with a comprimise, the majority of a state's delegates would come from the caucuses/primaries.
But each state would also get so many superdelegates (the Dems own name for them) for elected officials/party VIPs. The idea was that they weren't cut out but theoretically, they would only be a few among many & not have any real power. At least that is the way things were supposed to appear to the rank & file. This year may prove that they still do have more power than they claimed they had.
As for the Republican side. Each state is given 3 delegate spaces for the 2 National Central Committee members & the state chair.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
