AmericanPapist Comments
With Fred out, I am basically left with one option: Romney. I am not terribly excited about him, but he's preferable to any of the alternatives. I will be happy if he wins, but not as happy as if Fred had won.
Romney has repeatedly said he would double gitmo, and has stated draconian measures against illegal aliens. I don't believe you can have these views and still promote a culture of life. I understand the frustration and the fear, but the answer is not debasement of human life. We are Americans, and than means that we don't officially torture people, and that we treat those seeking a better life with compassion. I think McCain understands this, and will tackle the tough issues without losing sight of what it means to be an American, to deal with our adversaries and allies in a firm and fair manner.
Going into the primary and caucus season, I thought that the three worst Republican candidates, by far, were Giuliani, Romney, and McCain.
McCain has disqualified himself in my book numerous times over, by squelching free-speech rights through campaign finance "reform", by torpedoing efforts to get several of Bush's solid judicial nominees confirmed in the Senate, by supporting the illegal alien amnesty bill without supporting border security first (and for the record, I'm pro-immigration, and pro-Mexican, but anti-illegal immigration), by buying into the global warming junk science, and by several other actions or stances that I could name.
Giuliani appears to be a great candidate on some issues, but his pro-abortion stance disqualifies him for me (though I give him a little credit for at least being honest about it, rather than using the tired old "I'm personally opposed, but..." line).
And Romney talks a good talk, but I'm not at all impressed with what I have seen of his record. For example, check out Domenico Bettenelli's recent blog post about the out-of-control costs in the Massachusetts health care system:
http://www.bettnet.com/blog/inde...taxes_surprise/
And of course I'm not convinced about his pro-life conversion yet (though I would like to be). However, I feel just as confident in his willingness to advance the pro-life agenda as in McCain's (but that's not saying much, at all).
Bottom line: If it has to be either McCain or Romney, I guess I would choose Romney as the one likely to do the least damage to the country, but it's a close call. :-(
As a Florida voter I won't be voting in the primary for McCain or Romney since they both support ESCR using so-called leftover embryos.
Rudy - hell no with the Mayor of the culture of death.
That leaves Huckabee and Paul who are both pro-life without exceptions. Neither of them are going anywhere, but I refuse to vote for people who are less pro-life in the primary. The General election is another story since whoever the Democrat nominee is the Republican nominee (McCain or Romney) will be way more pro-life by comparison.
I would consider voting for Ron Paul if it wasn't for his Iraq pull out plans. I see no way this can be done in the short term without massive civilian deaths and the collapse of the government as terrorists are encouraged. We need to take care of our responsibility towards the Iraqis even though I was not onboard with the original invasion. Our pullout should be when we are confident it will not lead to massacres or it comes down to their government asking us to leave.
That leaves Huckabee which I find much to dislike in his foreign policy naivete and his record as governor. Though he is fully pro-life, against torture, and a social conservative so he will get my primary vote, but not with any zeal an the realization he is not going anywhere unless picked up as a Veep.
I'll vote for Ron Paul in the primary and then sit out the rest of the election process.
Mitt's involvement in the Mass universal health insurance plan? Romney used his line-item veto power to strike eight portions of the bill yet did NOT strike the coverage of abortion for a $50 co-pay. Though not perfect, I'd vote McCain on that strike.
Uhgggg!!! I voted for Huckabee in MI primary, I think I might just leave the country before the November election. The political field is full of stink.
McCain is supportive of embryonic stem cell research, which requires the destruction of human embryos. Romney is completely pro-life. He is also a masterful organizational leader.
I strongly support Mitt Romney.
I think I'll just hold my breath and stay underwater for the next four to eight years...
My primary concern is whether Romney or McCain will appoint the right justices. I'll vote for Paul; I may even right-in Keyes; but neither McCain nor Romney are certifiably pro-life. And they certainly don't reliably support a consistent Catholic ethos. But after the primary's done, and one of these two men are on the ballot for President...which one will appoint the right justices?
I just hope the pendulum won't swing Democrat. That would be disastrous. Because Ginsberg's waiting for a Democrat.
Ron Paul all the way.
allright, thanks for the input. now all we can do is sit back on watch the returns tomorrow....
Since neither Romney or McCain are great contestors, the one thing that we need to think of though is that either of them would be better than Clinton or Obama, so which one would be able to beat either of the two.
On McCain's pro-life credibility, he has the support of Senator Brownback and Professor Gerard Bradley of Notre Dame. I think McCain's pretty unimpeachable on pro-life issues, myself.
But the Catholic perspective must extend beyond abortion. While securing the US border and preventing illegal immigration is certainly an acceptable viewpoint (and one I agree with) deporting all those already in the US is unnecessary and in many instances, cruel. McCain's position here closely aligns with the sensible Catholic perspective. The same cannot be said for Romney or even Huckabee.
On Torture, there is yet another distinction. Romney's for it; McCain has led the fight against it in all circumstances.
From the Catholic perspective, I think the answer is clear.
I can't understand why McCain has STILL supported the destruction of embryoes.
He would have the nomination locked up by now if he was 100% pro-life - he would have taken those voters who are still hanging on to Huckabee away from him and distanced himself from Romney. What a shame.
I can't even see how promoting research on ESC is going to help him nationally - a truly stupid political move disguised as "a deep, moral consideration."
Anyone who thinks McCain or Romney is pro-life is an idiot. We will get the exact President that we deserve from allowing ignorant, clueless people to vote.
O, yeah. Gerard Bradley. Law professor. Pro-life activist. Idiot is exactly what comes to mind.
And I suppose that a perfect pro-life voting record (over 26 years) counts for nothing either, right, Geronimo?
On ESCR, let's quote Bradley again:
"McCain has said — it is true — that he approved embryo-destructive research in the limited case of so-called “spares”— those embryos “left-over” after couples have exhausted their interest in IVF. I disagree with him.In face-to-face conversation with McCain I said not only that such research was wrong, but that it would never be limited to “spares.” I said that big biotech needed a far larger supply of research subjects than “spares” could provide. McCain asked to continue that conversation, to hear more. Now he realizes that there is no need to exploit “spare” embryos, in light of recent successes with adult cells. And so he has been telling South Carolinians over the last few days."
"We will get the exact President that we deserve from allowing ignorant, clueless people to vote."
And pray tell, who's enlightened? That sounds like what Europeans and liberals said when Bush, who would also fail to qualify as pro-life, got re-elected. The candidate that the far right of the GOP wants can't win. If you want proof, see Barry Goldwater. You can either have a Republican president who can win over the moderates of the GOP and independents--the only way to win an election; sorry, the Christian base just isn't big enough--and who support much of the pro-life platform, including nominating judges--where the battle really matters--or you can get used to liberal Democrats in power for the foreseeable future.
Republicans are getting the candidates they deserve (and I don't think they're bad, either, especially given I'm a big backer of McCain) because Karl Rove polarized this country in the belief that it would benefit the GOP and it backfired tremendously. Now the GOP has to play to the center to regain credibility so that it's not completely routed in elections. Republicans asked for this. So maybe they are clueless and ignorant?
With the exception of Guiliani,the only "Catholic" candidate, who I think would have been a great president if he were only pro-life,I can probably stomach any Republican over any Democrat. The Dems are fighting over which one is MORE pro-abortion, for God's sake! I'm amazed at how many young people are for Ron Paul, I have to say. He did not impress me in the debates - I can't see him facing down an enemy of the USA, for instance, but he definitely has struck a chord with young adults for some reason.
nan,
Paul is basically a fairly principled libertarian. Many young people, including those who might otherwise lean liberal or conservative, are attracted to to the principles of libertarianism -- though horribly simplistic, these principles have the appeal of apparent consistency. Over time, real life exposes the superficiality of those principles. That's my take, though I could be just "projecting" the experiences of some folks I've known for many years, as well as my own. I once viewed myself as a libertarian, though I was always too practical to join the party; now I'm comfortably a Republican (yeah I know we have flaws, but so does America and I'm comfortably American too), while my 25 year-old son is the libertarian. In ten years he'll be a Republican too -- just watch.
Europeans are enlightened? They are so brainwashed to hate Bush by their media(strictly controlled) and education(also strictly controlled), it is almost a maniacal, irrational hatred they have for him which does not jive with reality. Their criticism of American politics is absurd, since they are not allowed to hear but one perspective. They live in a dictatorship. They also do not have much experience with democracy.
Uh, I was criticizing the Europeans. And by the way, Freedom House says that all of the West European states have a free press, except Turkey and Italy, who are labeled as only "partly free." So saying that it's tightly controlled runs contrary to what experts on the matter say.
Gerard, please cite your source on McCain's "in light of" speech on Embryos, because I've heard the exact opposite from him within the last week.
Michael, my source was the Bradley piece I hyperlinked. If it's inaccurate, then I (and many others, I'm sure), would like to know.
Best regards, Gerard
Commenting by HaloScan
