Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Politics and World Leaders => Topic started by: jman123 on December 29, 2011, 08:42:35 PM
-
what is it about Ron Paul that attracts a lot of traditionalists?
-
1.) He alone understands our economic system is fundamentally flawed and must be gutted. The rest want to tinker with the existing unsustainable system.
2.) He alone understands that unnecessary wars are the death of nations. That war should only be entered into if our national defense is at stake. That meddling in other nations' affairs breeds resentment and wastes money and lives.
3.) He's pro-life and wants Roe overturned.
4.) He wants absolute minimal federal government intrusion and regulation in our lives.
-
Santorum is actually for a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion, while Paul is not. However, since there is not a chance such amendment pass anyway, I'm not sure it matters. Santorum is also Catholic and pro-family. No doubt he'd appoint pro-life justices. Paul, I'm not so sure. He'd appoint libertarian justices who may or may not be pro-life. Maybe he's promised to nominate pro-life judges, but if so I'd like a link to the source.
We also must consider whether Paul is electable and can beat Obama. The newsletters issue, creating a cloud of doubt as to whether he is a closet bigot, has hurt him, whether these charges are true or not.
-
I've been sort of torn about this whole issue for the past few weeks. Part of me wants to really like Ron Paul, and everything he stands for, his consistency, his constitutionalism and minor isolationism and, what I see as, an anti-Judaic/ US control of the world and all world affairs; I refer especially to his views in the middle east with countries like Israel/Palestine and Iran.**
However, another part of me thinks, if someone's not Catholic (He isn't anyways), if they're not completely for the social Kingship of Christ and the restitution of Christ as the end of the citizens they represent, then everything else is moot.
I guess Ron Paul appeals to my political nature, yet he fails, as all modern politicians do, to appeal to my Religious senses- and of course the latter trumps all. We can talk all day about, "well perhaps God will use him to do this or that," or, "perhaps this is what God wants," but that's just adolescent wishful thinking.
When one sticks with what's visible to the Christian eye, its simple to see that only a great calamity will bring nations and rulers back to Christ, as our human nature and the abundance of Earthly pleasures have prevented most in this world from doing so. I think man comes to know and accept God in two primary ways: he is given, and is open to, His graces; or, because of no other choice, he is forced to turn to Our Lord because of need. I think most in Tradition fit the former description, and the rest of the world fits the latter.
There is no need in the world for God right now. People are led to believe they can live in this life without him; physically, this is true, as He forces no one to accept him. Sure, they create their own 'spirituality' to fill a void in their hearts; or, more correctly, they create their own spirituality to blind themselves from seeing the True God. They turn their head in another direction, avoiding the All Good, so they can continue in their ways, yet give themselves a false sense of spiritual satisfaction. But people do not care to seek out what is an absolute necessity, a truly Christian life. Vain pleasure rules, and one can readily find it in this world. The devil has worked hard, for many centuries to get to this point, and has so far succeeded.
So even if someone like Ron Paul, or Santorum, is successful in becoming the President, this may help Temporal matters in the world, but it will do absolutely nothing for what is truly important to the nation and the human race.
My (http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/736/c7c/736c7c59-53fe-4adf-a654-94a01c5c2630)
**He understands that the Church is able to fill the needs of those people who are poor, and had even worked for a Catholic hospital in the 60s and gave treatment to those in need for free; so while I support many ideals which do not fit the, so-called, 'conservative' agenda, I would support his approach; its all, or nothing. You can not call yourself conservative, yet remove the ability of the Church to render aid to those in need, either through supporting politicians who favor separation of Church and State, or through not supporting the Church of Christ. So for now, I support social welfare and fair treatment of workers, as the Church had done in the past when her ability to protect Her people was taken away.
-
I've been sort of torn about this whole issue for the past few weeks. Part of me wants to really like Ron Paul, and everything he stands for, his consistency, his constitutionalism and minor isolationism and, what I see as, an anti-Judaic/ US control of the world and all world affairs; I refer especially to his views in the middle east with countries like Israel/Palestine and Iran.**
However, another part of me thinks, if someone's not Catholic (He isn't anyways), if they're not completely for the social Kingship of Christ and the restitution of Christ as the end of the citizens they represent, then everything else is moot.
I guess Ron Paul appeals to my political nature, yet he fails, as all modern politicians do, to appeal to my Religious senses- and of course the latter trumps all. We can talk all day about, "well perhaps God will use him to do this or that," or, "perhaps this is what God wants," but that's just adolescent wishful thinking.
When one sticks with what's visible to the Christian eye, its simple to see that only a great calamity will bring nations and rulers back to Christ, as our human nature and the abundance of Earthly pleasures have prevented most in this world from doing so. I think man comes to know and accept God in two primary ways: he is given, and is open to, His graces; or, because of no other choice, he is forced to turn to Our Lord because of need. I think most in Tradition fit the former description, and the rest of the world fits the latter.
There is no need in the world for God right now. People are led to believe they can live in this life without him; physically, this is true, as He forces no one to accept him. Sure, they create their own 'spirituality' to fill a void in their hearts; or, more correctly, they create their own spirituality to blind themselves from seeing the True God. They turn their head in another direction, avoiding the All Good, so they can continue in their ways, yet give themselves a false sense of spiritual satisfaction. But people do not care to seek out what is an absolute necessity, a truly Christian life. Vain pleasure rules, and one can readily find it in this world. The devil has worked hard, for many centuries to get to this point, and has so far succeeded.
So even if someone like Ron Paul, or Santorum, is successful in becoming the President, this may help Temporal matters in the world, but it will do absolutely nothing for what is truly important to the nation and the human race.
My (http://images.tribe.net/tribe/upload/photo/736/c7c/736c7c59-53fe-4adf-a654-94a01c5c2630)
**He understands that the Church is able to fill the needs of those people who are poor, and had even worked for a Catholic hospital in the 60s and gave treatment to those in need for free; so while I support many ideals which do not fit the, so-called, 'conservative' agenda, I would support his approach; its all, or nothing. You can not call yourself conservative, yet remove the ability of the Church to render aid to those in need, either through supporting politicians who favor separation of Church and State, or through not supporting the Church of Christ. So for now, I support social welfare and fair treatment of workers, as the Church had done in the past when her ability to protect Her people was taken away.
true he is not for the social kingship of Christ.
-
The newsletters issue, creating a cloud of doubt as to whether he is a closet bigot, has hurt him
It's not a real issue. You have to remember that the media is liberal and pro-Obama, they don't want someone like Ron Paul to get elected because he would do away with everything they stand for; the board of education, FEMA, the fed, the CIA, and EPA would all be gone (and notice how all of those are part of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr?). So the media makes a mountain out of a molehill about small issues such as his newsletters in an attempt to ruin his campaign, and since it's the only dirt they can dig up on him, they bring it up over and over. I watched a video recently of Ron Paul being bugged by some CNN reporter about this issue. He said that he already answered the questions but she kept bringing the issue up until finally he took his microphone off and walked away. Sometimes the media will even make something out of nothing just to ruin him. They brought up a quote from his book from the 80s where he said that employees that are hit on by their boss should quit. The media was saying that quote could hurt him, yet I see nothing offensive there. It's just a desparation part on them, nothing but grasping at straws.
If I worked for a female boss and she hit on me, I would quit. Sure, the average person would take legal action, and perhaps some people could mistakenly believe Ron Paul doesn't think sɛҳuąƖ harassment is a big deal. But to pass it off as something that will hurt his campaign is quite ridiculous. Candidates like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have a lot more skeletons in their closet than Ron Paul does, yet interestingly the media rarely mentions anything negative about their past, if ever.
It's the same with all news stations, not just CNN. FOX News, which is sadly smiled upon by many conservatives (and neo-cons), doesn't like Ron Paul either. Sean Hannity who is a bit of a neo-con himself says that he likes every 2012 GOP candidate except Paul. Then you have Chris Wallace, a NWO freak who suddenly is coming out with statements that Iowa will be "dis-credited" if Ron Paul wins there, and that Iowa "doesn't even count". If it doesn't count, then why are you covering it, FOX? Stations like MSNBC are even worse. But they all have one thing in common: they can't stand anyone against the NWO. Even when Ron Paul is in the lead, they won't say he is, they'll say he's tied. They are all liars.
As for my thoughts on Ron Paul? Well, overall I think he's the best candidate to choose from. There are only two people I could vote for: him and Rick Santorum. Of all the candidates, Santorum is the one closest to the Social Kingship of Christ. I like his firm stance against abortion and gαy marriage. Unfortunetly, he's rather naive when it comes to war, and supports the patriot act. But even though neither Paul nor Santorum are perfect, I would settle for either one.
Anyone would be better than Obama, but being better than him isn't good enough. Romney is better than Obama, but he's still a NWO freak. There are only two candidates that I would trust to get rid of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. The sad thing is, neither one of them are likely to get the nomination.
-
The newsletters issue, creating a cloud of doubt as to whether he is a closet bigot, has hurt him
It's not a real issue. You have to remember that the media is liberal and pro-Obama, they don't want someone like Ron Paul to get elected because he would do away with everything they stand for; the board of education, FEMA, the fed, the CIA, and EPA would all be gone (and notice how all of those are part of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr?). So the media makes a mountain out of a molehill about small issues such as his newsletters in an attempt to ruin his campaign, and since it's the only dirt they can dig up on him, they bring it up over and over. I watched a video recently of Ron Paul being bugged by some CNN reporter about this issue. He said that he already answered the questions but she kept bringing the issue up until finally he took his microphone off and walked away. Sometimes the media will even make something out of nothing just to ruin him. They brought up a quote from his book from the 80s where he said that employees that are hit on by their boss should quit. The media was saying that quote could hurt him, yet I see nothing offensive there. It's just a desparation part on them, nothing but grasping at straws.
If I worked for a female boss and she hit on me, I would quit. Sure, the average person would take legal action, and perhaps some people could mistakenly believe Ron Paul doesn't think sɛҳuąƖ harassment is a big deal. But to pass it off as something that will hurt his campaign is quite ridiculous. Candidates like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have a lot more skeletons in their closet than Ron Paul does, yet interestingly the media rarely mentions anything negative about their past, if ever.
It's the same with all news stations, not just CNN. FOX News, which is sadly smiled upon by many conservatives (and neo-cons), doesn't like Ron Paul either. Sean Hannity who is a bit of a neo-con himself says that he likes every 2012 GOP candidate except Paul. Then you have Chris Wallace, a NWO freak who suddenly is coming out with statements that Iowa will be "dis-credited" if Ron Paul wins there, and that Iowa "doesn't even count". If it doesn't count, then why are you covering it, FOX? Stations like MSNBC are even worse. But they all have one thing in common: they can't stand anyone against the NWO. Even when Ron Paul is in the lead, they won't say he is, they'll say he's tied. They are all liars.
As for my thoughts on Ron Paul? Well, overall I think he's the best candidate to choose from. There are only two people I could vote for: him and Rick Santorum. Of all the candidates, Santorum is the one closest to the Social Kingship of Christ. I like his firm stance against abortion and gαy marriage. Unfortunetly, he's rather naive when it comes to war, and supports the patriot act. But even though neither Paul nor Santorum are perfect, I would settle for either one.
Anyone would be better than Obama, but being better than him isn't good enough. Romney is better than Obama, but he's still a NWO freak. There are only two candidates that I would trust to get rid of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. The sad thing is, neither one of them are likely to get the nomination.
The Duggars are campaigning for Santorum by the way
-
Santorum was just being interviewd by Hannity on Fox and he said (according to script) that Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map.
-
Interviews with Dr. Paul on Jan 1 2012
CNN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvvciND6Xg4&feature=youtu.be
ABC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PZkXS9qgv-Q
Faux News
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fErs-oQnwC0
With our new martial law I am almost afraid to support RP. I wonder if not voting will arouse suspicions....
-
The Duggars are campaigning for Santorum by the way
19 votes and counting...
-
Although Ron Paul may not be the best Catholic choice, when it comes to Rick Santorum (even though it has been that he attends the TLM), let's not forget the compromises that he made by selling out to the "mainstreem" Neo-Con/GOP establishment from 2004-06. I have a hard time believing that one really supports "family values" when they also bow to Straussianism. For those that might have forgotten, see exhibit A:
(http://i43.tinypic.com/24xphyv.jpg)
A picture of Santorum in 2006 speaking to dispensational, Isreal-firster Evangelicals at a "Christians United for Israel" (CUFI, which I believe is run by John Hagee) rally. Israeli flag in the background.
-
I wouldn't vote Santorum for dog catcher based on his betrayal of Pat Toomey in the Pennsylvania Senate race, his Zionism not withstanding.
What particularly attracts me to Ron Paul as a candidate is his understanding of what constitutes a Just War. Every other Republican candidate seems to be chomping at the bit to start another war with Iran.
I hope the Neo-Con grip on the Republican Party will soon be broken.
-
I don't know if there is truth to this or if this org. is reputable but they claim that Santorum is pretty corrupt. This was done in 2006 so maybe he cleaned up his act since.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/index.php/press/entry/crew-releases-second-annual-most-corrupt-members-of-congress-report/
-
Well, I know that Santorum was voted the "most corrupt senator" in 1996.
The stuff I've read and heard about him the past few days really is a turn-off...so there goes any support I originally had for him. He'd be better than Obama, but "better than Obama" isn't good enough. All of the Republicans running for president in 2012 are better than Obama. That certainly does not mean that all of them would do away with the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.
-
I don't know if there is truth to this or if this org. is reputable but they claim that Santorum is pretty corrupt. This was done in 2006 so maybe he cleaned up his act since.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/index.php/press/entry/crew-releases-second-annual-most-corrupt-members-of-congress-report/
Probably done by a Democrat since 21 of the 25 congress members on the corrupt list are Republicans. So I wouldn't trust this.
-
(http://i43.tinypic.com/24xphyv.jpg)
A picture of Santorum in 2006 speaking to dispensational, Isreal-firster Evangelicals at a "Christians United for Israel" (CUFI, which I believe is run by John Hagee) rally. Israeli flag in the background.
>>>...A major recipient of campaign money from pro-Israel sources, Santorum said criticizing Israel was “anti-Semitism.”
http://americanfreepress.net/?p=2141
-
To play the devil's advocate here, I've read this site the past few weeks and find it an interesting take on Paul. The author seems to be an old democrat , liking FDR and JFK as a more likely type hero. It seems he's partial to Lyndon Larouche as well. I don't agree with this blogger's political stance but found it somewhat worthwhile reading.
http://deadeyeblog.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/ron-paul-operation-briar-patch/
-
He was also a strong ally for Israel and American Jews. In 2003, Santorum and fellow Republicans heard from Hillel, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Zionist Organization of America to determine how to combat anti-Semitism in American colleges.[46] Santorum drafted language on "ideological diversity," which Race & Class magazine suggested was tantamount to "policing thought."[47] Inside Higher Ed suggested that he was pandering to David Horowitz and had no deep-seated position on the legislation.[48]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum
Schools not teaching proIsrael ideology to loose government funding.
http://www.rense.com/general37/idleg.htm
Now tie this in with the recent passage of that new defense bill (pushed by Zionists and neocons) making citizens subject to detainment by the military based on whim without due process (iow martial law) and criticism of Israel or voicing antiwar sentiments may become criminal or at least suspect activites.
-
Ron Paul's view on who the major players are behind the neo con and the zionist movements.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx1Jpxel-1k&feature=player_embedded
-
I probably know less of American politics than I ought, to comment on this, but I do know one fact of Catholic social teaching - It is not libertarian, as Ron Paul is. Since the time of Rerum Novarum during the pontificate of Pope Leo XII, the Catholic Church has expounded a social philosophy that is truly unique.
Chris Ferrara, editor of the traditionalist publication, the Remnant, commented on libertarianism vis-a-vis Catholic thought, rather unnecessarily angrily, I thought, to a former colleague here (http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-0215-ferrara-ludwig_von_mises_versus_christ.htm).
But it is quite another thing to claim, as you do, that you are exercising legitimate freedom in the Church—no, you are not—and, far worse, to engage in a campaign to persuade faithful Catholics that what your Institute preaches—a form of economic and social liberalism condemned by a long line of Popes (cf. Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei, n. 61)—is “perfectly compatible” with traditional Roman Catholicism.
Whatever the issue, Mises and Rothbard are clearly at odds with the teaching of Christ and His Church.
-
I probably know less of American politics than I ought, to comment on this, but I do know one fact of Catholic social teaching - It is not libertarian, as Ron Paul is. Since the time of Rerum Novarum during the pontificate of Pope Leo XII, the Catholic Church has expounded a social philosophy that is truly unique.
Chris Ferrara, editor of the traditionalist publication, the Remnant, commented on libertarianism vis-a-vis Catholic thought, rather unnecessarily angrily, I thought, to a former colleague here (http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-0215-ferrara-ludwig_von_mises_versus_christ.htm).
But it is quite another thing to claim, as you do, that you are exercising legitimate freedom in the Church—no, you are not—and, far worse, to engage in a campaign to persuade faithful Catholics that what your Institute preaches—a form of economic and social liberalism condemned by a long line of Popes (cf. Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei, n. 61)—is “perfectly compatible” with traditional Roman Catholicism.
Whatever the issue, Mises and Rothbard are clearly at odds with the teaching of Christ and His Church.
+100
-
Ron Paul - War Propaganda
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8KiRAMvAlpQ
-
I would vote for anyone who can beat Obama, but Ron Paul according to the Internet is a FreeMason of the highest rank.
Doubt he could beat Obama even if he wasn't a Mason.
-
but Ron Paul according to the Internet is a FreeMason of the highest rank.
That's nothing but a false rumor. Ron Paul denied ever being a Mason, as did his son Rand. Not only that, but there is absolutely zero evidence that he's a Mason.
-
Well I hope your right, because I hate the Masons, arch enemies of the Church.
I still don't think he can beat Obama, and I would love to see Obama out of office. I can't imagine anyone worse then he, except a FreeMason.
Yet, we are all in God's hands, and He knows who the next president will be, we will know soon enough too.
-
I actually wouldn't be surprised if Obama is a Freemason...
-
Dr. Ronald Paul seems to be an orthodox minded candidate for the 2012 presidential candidacy. He wants to eliminate the Federal Reserve which will terminate the dominance of private bankers, especially European influence, on the American economy. He also wants to extirpate all foreign aid and use the money to help our nation.
I hear that he is not against states legalizing prostitution or heroine? If that's true, then those views of his are a stumbling block for me and I can't vote for him to be president.
-
Nor can I!
-
I hear that he is not against states legalizing prostitution or heroine? If that's true, then those views of his are a stumbling block for me and I can't vote for him to be president.
Not defending, nor agreeing, but his basis is that if you make some acts illegal, it opens the way to illegalizing legitimate rights, such as the right to bear arms. If you look a the facts, seems pretty accurate in our day and age. Also, you better not vote for anyone else pretending they give a stick about prostitution or heroine being eradicated.
-
For me, Dr. Ronald Paul is only TRUE Republican out there because even Liberal Democrat and American comedian, Bill Maher lauded Ron Paul's conservative positions when it came to foreign policy. However, his libertarian views in certain areas remain controversial to many conservatives, especially traditional Catholics.
Although it's true to say he's pro-life and committed to outlaw Roe v. Wade in our country
-
http://www.newswithviews.com/Yates/steven146.htm
...Perhaps we should note: at present, Romney’s major campaign contributor is Goldman Sachs; in the 2008 election cycle Obama’s second largest campaign contributor was Goldman Sachs. Today, Romney’s former company Bain Capital is one of the primary owners of Clear Channel, in turn the largest owner of conservative talk radio stations in the country. It is true that Romney no longer runs the company; but he has a financial stake in it worth millions (go here). Is it really that surprising that major conservative voices—or voices that call themselves conservative at any rate—are supporting Romney? Follow the money.
...Again, mainstream Republicans controlled Congress from 1994 until 2006. They had every opportunity to do something about abortion besides bloviate on the subject and accept money from pro-life groups. They did nothing. To my mind it seems hypocritical for anyone in the GOP to condemn Ron Paul for declaring abortion to be not a federal responsibility.
Not much really gets better , no matter what establishment candidate they give us, does it? Same old same old . Do you think a Gingrich or a Romney , Santorum, etc will be any better than a Bush? How bout 4 more with Obama? Or we can abstain from voting. They'll probably drag out the highly politicized abortion issue again to corral the Christians but that won't change , will it? I don't agree with Paul on a number of libertarian views but at least he addresses some pretty major problems.
-
Truth or Fiction, I don't know, but would like to know.
http://watch.pair.com/synarchy-6.html#ron
-
Source:
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2012/01/zionists-fear-ron-pauls-influence-on.html
Zionists fear Ron Paul’s influence on Romney
Editor’s Note: Zionists are often exceedingly vigilant and alert for the slightest sign of potential opposition, however remote. Here below is an alarm in the New York newspaper Forward, over the prospect of an “anti-semitic" Ron Paul presidency, which might force the Israelis to make peace instead of war: "Israel can’t be defeated if America is actively behind it. Take that away and Israel is just a middle-sized regional power.” Correct. Under a Paul presidency the Israelis would have to learn to live with their neighbors rather than bombing them; what a frightening prospect. There’s more: elephant-memory recall of former George Herbert Walker Bush’s chief of staff, John Sununu, along with bigoted racial paranoia over his Arab roots and possible influence on Romney.
Reporter J.J. Goldberg fears that Romney will "need Paul not to mount a third-party run, as he did in 1988. An independent Ron Paul campaign would guarantee Obama’s reelection...Romney will need to appease Paul with...promises of administration positions for his allies. A stronger Romney could simply ignore Paul’s surge. But Romney isn’t strong...”
Ron Paul is a populist in touch with the foreign policy thinking of many Americans, while hawkish Zionists (and that includes all of the other Republican candidates) are out to lunch on foreign policy. One of Goldberg’s charges against Sununu is that he described the 1967 Israeli attack on the naval ship U.S.S. Liberty as “vicious and unprovoked.” This was also the view of America's highest ranking naval officer, Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, along with the sailors who were on board the U.S.S. Liberty and witnessed the brazen Zionist massacre. Was Admiral Moorer “anti-semitic”?
Personally I don’t think Mr. Goldberg has much to worry about. If Ron Paul fades in the primaries in the South under withering fire from the Establishment media, Romney can ignore him; and a third party run by Paul could seriously undermine his Republican son Rand’s future in the U.S. Senate. As for Romney himself, no Zionist need be anxious over his supposed tepid allegiance to the Israeli lobby. Romney called on Sununu in order to build his New Hampshire political base, not to begin to craft an even-handed, peace-loving foreign policy in the Middle East. Romney is the quintessential opportunist and no president of that stripe has ever significantly bucked the media influence and Congressional power of The Lobby, and that includes George H.W. Bush.
Mr. Goldberg’s column is intended to stoke the fires of an even more intense Ron Paul incineration on the part of Zionist media executives. Hopefully they will overplay their hand and the American people will see the degree to which Paul scares the pants off the covert terrorism-industrial complex which continues to bog us down in useless, wastrel foreign wars while making America more enemies around the world.
Calling the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty a “mistake” is all we need to know about the truthfulness and objectivity of J.J. Goldberg.
Watch What You Wish For, GOP
Ron Paul Could Wind Up As Man Behind Mitt's Curtain
By J.J. Goldberg
Forward | January 12, 2012
Now that the New Hampshire GOP primary results are in, pro-Israel Republicans might want to sit back, take a deep breath and do some long, hard thinking. As much as they’d like to see President Obama booted from the White House next fall, they’d be wise to be careful what they wish for. Especially if they were watching television on victory night.
The operating assumption on the pro-Israel right — and, to be fair, in a healthy chunk of the center — is that Obama is no friend of the Jєωιѕн state. If Israel’s vulnerability keeps you awake at night, it’s natural to want a president who knows how to back our friends and oppose our enemies. That’s certainly how the Republican field presents itself, with the obvious exception of Ron Paul. The narrowing of the field, therefore, has to be a welcome thing for opponents of Obama.
If you’re accustomed to voting for Democrats, it’s probably a relief to see Mitt Romney emerge as the clear front-runner, given his background as a pro-choice Massachusetts moderate. Conservative Republicans still suspect he has adopted their language for marketing purposes and remains at heart the liberal he was in the Massachusetts governor’s mansion. If so, that should help disaffected Democrats feel comfortable with him.
After New Hampshire, though, the picture is getting a bit murkier. True, Romney appears all but unbeatable. He’s won twin victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, a one-two punch that no non-incuмbent Republican has ever achieved before. None of his rivals seems even remotely positioned to overtake him.
On the other hand, he remains a weak favorite, disliked by his party’s powerful evangelical and conservative wings. The fact that he couldn’t break the 40% mark in New Hampshire, right on his home turf, after four years of nonstop campaigning, suggests he’s going to remain the candidate of last resort right up to the convention. A lot of Republicans just don’t like him.
Which brings us back to Ron Paul. Romney’s weakness gives Paul an unexpected measure of clout. For all his eccentricity, he’s been the surprise of the campaign, electrifying crowds of adoring young enthusiasts and crusty independents who’ve never followed politics before. His impressive showings, a strong third-place in Iowa and second-place in New Hampshire, prove he has the strength to stay in the race racking up delegates until the end. He’ll come to the convention in Tampa next summer well positioned to make demands.
Romney will ultimately win the nomination. Republicans will decide they have no alternative. To win the general election, though, he’ll need some enthusiasm from the party base. He’ll need his defeated rivals to bring their followers around and unite behind him. Most acutely, he’ll need Paul not to mount a third-party run, as he did in 1988. An independent Ron Paul campaign would guarantee Obama’s reelection.
In other words, Romney will need to appease Paul with platform planks and perhaps promises of administration positions for his allies. A stronger Romney could simply ignore Paul’s surge. But Romney isn’t strong.
Paul claims he’s neither anti-Semitic nor anti-Israel. He’s just wary of foreign entanglements. There’s evidence to the contrary, and it’s been well reported: The former aide who says he’s heard Paul say he wished Israel didn’t exist. The extremist and racist newsletters. Paul’s private mutterings aren’t the real problem, though. The problem is his unabashed isolationism. Should he gain real influence, his policy positions would directly endanger Israel. They would broadcast to Israel’s enemies that it no longer enjoys the umbrella of American protection. Remember, that’s the real importance of financial aid to Israel, and of a muscular American foreign policy. Israel can’t be defeated if America is actively behind it. Take that away and Israel is just a middle-sized regional power.
In the end, of course, it’s presidents that make foreign policy. A Romney White House would reflect the personal convictions of Mitt Romney. Whatever those turn out to be.
This is what made primary night television coverage so unsettling: the reminders that we don’t really know what Romney believes, and he may have no intention of telling us until he’s inaugurated.
Of all those reminders, the most chilling was the appearance of former New Hampshire governor John Sununu as a Romney spokesman. For those with long memories, it harkened back to the 1988 election, when Sununu was Republican candidate George H.W. Bush’s national campaign manager. Pro-Israel hawks were beating the drum for Bush that year, warning that Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis was a threat to Israel because Jesse Jackson was prominent in his party. Bush was Israel’s true friend, they said.
Nobody paid much attention to Sununu until after Election Day, even though the press was reporting some alarming facts about him (I remember, because I wrote the stories). One of the highest-ranking Lebanese Americans in national politics — and the only one then active in Arab-American community affairs — Sununu was also the only one of the 50 governors who refused to sign a 1987 proclamation saluting the 90th anniversary of Zionism and calling on the United Nations to rescind its Zionism-racism resolution. His reasoning was that governors shouldn’t dabble in foreign affairs — though he’d issued proclamations honoring Bastille Day and saluting Polish freedom on Pulaski Day. In 1988 he issued a proclamation honoring the veterans of the U.S.S. Liberty, an American naval vessel mistakenly attacked by Israeli jets in June 1967, causing 34 deaths. Sununu called the attack “vicious and unprovoked.”
Bush’s Jєωιѕн supporters insisted Sununu’s views didn’t reflect Bush’s. When word came out that Sununu was to be White House chief of staff, they said he wouldn’t be involved in Middle East policy. They said Bush was a devoted friend of Israel. Then we found out he wasn’t.
We hadn’t seen much of Sununu lately, until Romney went and found him. Or they found each other.
-
For some reason, I find it really ironic, that people want to pull Ron Paul apart, when the same people that are doing so, pined over George W Bush back in the day, saying that we would be "throwing our vote away" if we didn't vote for him, when it was KNOWN for a LONG TIME that he was a Bonesman, a Freemason, a flip flopper on abortion, et cetera, et cetera.
I don't see anyone in this race that matches up to Ron Paul. Crap is going to hit the fan. We already know it's not going to be pleasant. We know that no matter who gets in there, we're going to get stormtrooped badly. So... even if there's no chance in hell that Ron Paul is going to win, I'm still going to back him up, and laugh at the people that want to continually bash their heads into a brick wall and wonder why they have a headache, every four years, asking themselves what the heck just happened, when they keep doing the same thing over and over and over and over and over again.
*inserts two cents*
-
For some reason, I find it really ironic, that people want to pull Ron Paul apart, when the same people that are doing so, pined over George W Bush back in the day, saying that we would be "throwing our vote away" if we didn't vote for him, when it was KNOWN for a LONG TIME that he was a Bonesman, a Freemason, a flip flopper on abortion, et cetera, et cetera.
I don't see anyone in this race that matches up to Ron Paul. Crap is going to hit the fan. We already know it's not going to be pleasant. We know that no matter who gets in there, we're going to get stormtrooped badly. So... even if there's no chance in hell that Ron Paul is going to win, I'm still going to back him up, and laugh at the people that want to continually bash their heads into a brick wall and wonder why they have a headache, every four years, asking themselves what the heck just happened, when they keep doing the same thing over and over and over and over and over again.
*inserts two cents*
This is the part where somebody accuses you of committing a mortal sin for not supporting Romney, since otherwise you are helping abortion, which Romney will do so much to stop.
-
Romney and Gingrich...yuck. I wouldn't vote for either one them.
-
Romney and Gingrich...yuck. I wouldn't vote for either one them.
It's strange, they say that Romney is the Mormon, yet Gingrich has multiple wives...
-
Romney and Gingrich...yuck. I wouldn't vote for either one them.
So your "would be vote" goes to Obama.
I agree I don't like any of the choices right now, I just wish Jesus would come back and straighten out this world once and for all.
-
Romney and Gingrich...yuck. I wouldn't vote for either one them.
It's strange, they say that Romney is the Mormon, yet Gingrich has multiple wives...
:roll-laugh1:
-
Maybe Romney really does want to win. So the idea that he would be willing to make promises to dissuade Paul from running third party might not seem so far-fetched. I don't think McCain really cared all that much about winning. The role of the Republican nominee is to foremost be a place-holder. Actually winning elections seems like it's secondary priority, and actually representing their voters is probably something they actively avoid doing whenever possible.
But "conservatives" for the most part are afraid to vote for anyone who would actually represent them. Perhaps because deep down they aren't really conservatives, they just like playing the part?
Both the voters and their candidates prefer play acting to genuine political action.
-
So your "would be vote" goes to Obama.
Well, a vote for Obama or the GOP nominee would be a vote for the NWO either way, unless Paul got the nomination (which he won't). Although, writing Ron's name in wouldn't be such a bad idea...
-
Flip floppin' Romney.
Will he stop abortion? You're kidding yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9njHHyRI7g