Not Newt

National Review Online has a fair, balanced, and reasonable editorial on our looming primary decision.

While giving credit to Newt's positive characteristics, it has come to the same conclusion that I have. Not Newt.

I, like many other conservatives, have spent months searching for the anybody but Romney candidate. Newt's comeback in the polls after a disastrous and what I thought fatal start is as startling as its effect on me. I am now searching for the anybody but Newt candidate.

Look, Newt is a smart fella and I can even relegate the marital peccadilloes to the past, but Newt is still Newt.

Romney will disappoint me, I know that. But Newt can/will destroy us (conservatives). Newt will blow up, either as a candidate or as a President and he will take the entire conservative movement with him. His hubris and his flightiness will end up alienating just about everyone. You know how I know this? Because that is what Newt always does.

While he had successes as Speaker, he ended up the most unpopular figure in the country, both left and right. As a pundit, he has done the same thing. And as a candidate, the same thing. Newt blows up. That is what Newt does.

Romney will disappoint me, I know that. He says many of the right things now, but his record is the stuff of schizoid legend. But even if Romney only believes half of what he now claims to believe and the rest is pandering, I might take that. At least the pandering recognizes there is a base he must satisfy. Newt doesn't care because he knows he is smarter than me and you. It is we who must change our opinion before Newt changes his.

Romney is no conservative, I know that. But I think that I prefer the guy who at least pretends to be.

I am still a supporter of Santorum. Notwithstanding a dramatic showing in Iowa, I must accept that 4% is 4% and I might not have that choice. But if I had to choose between Newt and Mitt, I think I choose Mitt. Call it risk mitigation.

Comments

  1. National Review Online has a fair, balanced, and reasonable editorial on our looming primary decision.

    Are you joking? NR's editorial is one of the most intellectually dishonest things I've ever seen. They winnow the field down to Romney, Huntsman, and Santorum - in other words Romney and two guys who almost have no chance to beat Romney. It's their way of endorsing Romney without endorsing Romney. For their next act NR is going to ask their readers to select the next American League champ, only they can't consider the Rangers, Angels, Red Sox and Rays and must choose between the Yankees, Royals, and Mariners.

    I'm not a Newt supporter, but if you want an actually honest evaluation of the man you'd be better served with with this. I'll take Newt over Mitt in a heartbeat.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not joking Paul. I think that Newt could/would be a disaster that could set back the movement a decade and by then it could all be over.

    With Romney, I may only get 70% of what I want. Gingrich is too much of a wildcard.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If Judge Bork and Mary Ann Glendon can support Mitt, I can support him too.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm not referring to your judgment, Pat, I'm talking about the NR editorial. It's such an embarrassment that I think the magazine has lost all credibility forever. Again, it's not the anti-Newt stuff as much as the transparent non-endorsement endorsement of Romney that is a display of disgusting intellectual dishonesty.

    If you're going to make the case against Newt, you should probably rely on less odious sources.

    If Judge Bork and Mary Ann Glendon can support Mitt, I can support him too.

    Yeah, why think for yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I blink dumbly at the screen.

    NR has been in the tank for Romney. That piece is, to my estimation, yet another in a shoreless ocean of hit pieces. I cannot fathom how it could be considered an honest evaluation.

    I agree with you on Santorum being far preferable, but if a hypothetical Pres. Romney gave me 30% of what I wanted, I'd be stunned. If you are so inclined, walk us through your reasoning that Romney would give us 70% of what we want.

    I'd rather have the intermittently sane Ron Paul than Mitt Romney.

    For your consideration -- not that I am optimistic of your mind being changed -- here are two pieces worthy of inspection:

    http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2011/12/romneys-1994-problem.php

    http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2011/11/25/the-unelectable-mitt-romney/

    I have the same concerns you have, only I have them about Mitt Romney.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Yeah, why think for yourself?"

    Let's see. I've got Judge Bork and Mary Ann Glendon saying one thing, and Hollywood and a bunch of punk-@$$ rock stars saying something else. I'm trying to remember how following the latter worked out for us three years ago. Hmmm ...

    ReplyDelete
  7. It is true that Mitt Romney has taken positions or made statements that are not conservative. But they all occurred several years ago.

    The biggest change is that he went from pro-choice to pro-life (although it seems clear that he's always been personally pro-life for what its worth). As pro-lifers we should applaud this change, we want converts to our cause after all. Once he became pro-life he did as much as he could to protect life in Massachusetts and he's been unwavering ever since.

    Contrary to a recurring myth, Romney has always been pro-marriage and did as much as he could to prevent same-sex marriage in his state (Just ask Maggie Gallagher or the Mass. bishops)

    -Its true that Romney called himself a progressive 9 years ago, but he's been pretty consistently conservative for the last 6 or 7 years. You can't say the same about Newt.

    Newt has taken non-conservative positions within the past 6 or 7 months. He bashed Paul Ryan's medicare plan, he supported a FEDERAL individual mandate (something Romney has never supported), he said life began at fertilization, not conception (and called those of us who believe it begins at conception "ideologues").
    Newt expressed disapproval of risk-takers in a capitalist society.

    Of course Newt apologizes for these mistakes the next day and says he made a stupid mistake. But then a few days he'll say the same thing.

    With Romney he may have taken a bad position a decade ago but since then he's been very consistently conservative.

    Newt had good positions 17 years ago, but since then he'll take a different side depending on the day of the week. One day he is the great moderate unifier, the next he's the Tea Party firebrand. One day he takes 1.6 million from Freddie Mac the next day he says people who supported them were criminal. One day he's for intervention in Libya the next day he's opposed to it.

    I understand that many conservatives have valid concerns about Mitt. I would understand if you supported Perry, or Santorum or Bachmann because they are more conservative. But it makes no sense to support Newt as the "true conservative".

    ReplyDelete
  8. zlet's see. I've got Judge Bork and Mary Ann Glendon saying one thing, and Hollywood and a bunch of punk-@$$ rock stars saying something else. I'm trying to remember how following the latter worked out for us three years ago. Hmmm ...

    That would be a valid retort were it not a strawman.

    It is true that Mitt Romney has taken positions or made statements that are not conservative. But they all occurred several years ago.

    Yeah, he's been a bedrock of conservative principles for like five whole years - all of which he's been running for president.

    I understand that many conservatives have valid concerns about Mitt. I would understand if you supported Perry, or Santorum or Bachmann because they are more conservative.

    Good, because I do.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Do you take your Catholic faith at all seriously? It doesn't seem so. First, as far as the Church is concerned, Newt has been married only ONCE. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that he was received into the Catholic Church? His former "marriages" must have been annulled and his present marriage determined licit, otherwise he could not have been received into the Catholic Church. Any serious Catholic must accept the fact that Newt has been married one time only.

    Second, do you have no confidence in the power of the Catholic faith to work powerfully in a man to convert him from vice to virtue? It seems not. As for me, I will trust in the wisdom of the Church in receiving Newt as a member in good standing, and, just as importantly, in the power of the Holy Spirit to bring about true repentance and conversion in a man who by all outward indications seems to have undergone a profound change in his life.

    Third, has it not even crossed your mind that the incredible turnabout in Newt's campaign, from being dead in the water with massive staff departure to being in the lead may just be the work of God? I'm not saying it is, but certainly he has seen an amazing reversal in status that is hard to explain merely in human terms.

    One point about Mitt: I must question the judgment of anyone who sincerely accepts Mormonism. If you believe that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County Missouri, I have some serious doubts about you grasp on reality. I would much rather give the benefit of the doubt to someone who has embraced the original Church and promoted the life and work of Pope John Paul II.

    Steven R. Lo Vullo

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mitt is about as pro-life and as conservative as Barack Obama. I'll admit Newt is not perfect, and I understand if someone would choose not to vote for him. However, Mitt is not the more conservative candidate, and I think he would destroy the pro-life movement and the conservative movement far worse than Gingrich ever could.

    http://prolifeprofiles.com/romney

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anyway, I think Romney just jumped the shark. He not only referred to Newt as "zany," but also implied that conservative talk radio hosts are "zany" as well. Does he not understand that the base takes very seriously talk radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, etc.? He may as well have called mainstream Republicans "zany." Does he really think he can win the primaries relying solely on "independents"? Good luck. And I don't believe in luck. This guy is finished.

    Steven R. Lo Vullo

    ReplyDelete
  12. You say you know that Romney is no conservative. So why would you support him over Newt? Newt may have SAID some questionable things, but Romney has actually INSTITUTED some abominable things. He says his RomneyCare plan is just an example of "states rights." But tyranny is tyranny, and bad judgment is bad judgement. You mentioned Newt's opposition to Paul Ryan's plan for Medicare. Newt's position on Medicare is perfectly reasonable. He explained that he doesn't want to do with Medicare what Obama did with ObamaCare, i.e., shove something down peoples' throats when they are not on board. This is completely understandable. People must be persuaded that change is necessary before it is implemented. We can't just run roughshod over people before the are ready for change.

    Steven R. Lo Vullo

    ReplyDelete
  13. I prefer Ron Paul over all the other candidates. He's profoundly conservative, he has a steadly marriage, fiscally responsible, and doesn;t believe that the US should be the world's policeman.
    Milt Romney I'm not to crazy about, but at least he has a steady marriage.
    Newt I'd never vote for. He has shown himself to be unstable in his family life, he switches his positions on issues at the drop of a hat, is arrogant and ticks people off. The fact that he's Catholic now is no qualifier for high office. If he's a believing Catholic, he can receive forgiveness of his sins and eternal life, but that doesn't mean he's capable of being the POTUS. JFK was a Catholic too, bt if we knew then what we know now about his private life, would any sane American in the 60's vote for him to be the President? We know a lot more about Gingrich, and no sane person is going to vote for him.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The National Review is a joke. They outright lied about Ron Paul in the article, dismissing him with this:
    "Representative Paul’s recent re-dabbling in vile conspiracy theories about September 11 are a reminder that the excesses of the movement he leads are actually its essence."

    If you want to defeat Obama, you should vote for the only candidate who can actually beat him in a head-to-head election - Ron Paul.

    Of course, if it's more important to you to maintain the American empire than to defeat Obama, then by all means vote for Romney or Gingrich or one of the other clowns. Any of them would lose to Obama. But then, that shouldn't matter to you, because Obama's foreign policy is identical to Romney's and Gingrich's and Santorum's and Bush II's. And maintaining the empire appears to be the single non-negotiable issue on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I share this concern about Newt "blowing up". On the other hand, I remember very clearly how every word, every step, every motion of Newt's head was taken by the media and turned into the heinous acts of the villainous caricature they had created.

    The media hated him so much they made him into this crazed guy who was: 1 part Mr. Hyde, 1 part Quasimodo, 1 part Dr. Frankenstein and 1 part Scrooge. It is any surprise that some of that has stuck around?

    Liberals HATED the fact that he helped win back control of the Congress after 40 years. They HATED the fact that Newt succeed with the Contract for America and that he pushed through welfare reform. What Newt did was tantamount to a real revolution in American politics at the time. (I remember it vividly as I was working on The Hill at the time, and even met him a few times - although I don't know him.)

    So called "Moderate" Republicans hated this change just as much, so he was attacked from both sides.

    I agree that the NR article is unbalanced, and it reeks of the old Newt-bashing caricatures.

    So while I share certain concerns about Newt, in being objective, one has to consider how this information is being presented to us. On the whole, he is infinitely better than Obama and would have my vote if it came down to him.

    Rommey would get my vote, too, over Obama. Then again, I would vote for Linsday Lohan over OB. At least she would be passed out somewhere not making things any worse.

    (Oh and I'd vote for Linsday Lohan over RP too. Talk about making things worse!

    A vote for RP is a vote for the Iranian bomb and it's use on Israel and the US. Gee there's a good idea. Can't we try him as a traitor right now? Since it will bring about WWIII, maybe he can be tried in the Hague for crimes against humanity. He is the ONLY candidate - including Obama - who thinks it's a good idea for Iran to be allowed the capability of destroying the United States - which they are planning to do right now. If anyone could go back in time and stop 9/11 would you? With an Iranian bomb the future of America is a wasteland of destruction. No other issue will matter when everyone is dead.)

    As of last night I have actually begun to seriously consider donating to Santorum's campaign. Even though I don't give him much chance. I have I have seen him evolving a bit. If he got a bit more momentum, it would at least force the conversation more to the right.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "A vote for RP is a vote for the Iranian bomb and it's use on Israel and the US."

    Let's leave the polemical and naive haze where we believe candidates will do exactly as they say when running for the president. All of the under-the-radar we work we do overseas will not continue. America has finally joined the asymmetrical battlefield, and this is much cheaper than moving 200,000 men. Ron Paul will not threaten our national security. People talk about him like he's a 10-year-old.

    I like brass-knuckle republicans. Rep. Allen West. Bobby Jindal. I was on the Cain train.

    I was never a Ron Paul fan until we got down to these two other clowns. Newt Gingrich simply does not want to size down. Romney upsets my stomach with his inability to be consistent and then deny it. It's more childish talk.

    America would benefit greatly if Ron Paul won the primary, even if he was rudely defeated in the general election. He would shake every institutional principle to the core and remind Americans that voting actually matters still. He would shut up and further relegate the MSM to the realm peanut gallery pundits, leeching off of a dying medium (TV).

    And in the history of this country, third parties are always assimilated into one of the two party systems. If you really want something done, take the long shot with a bunch of other people.

    In less than 10 minutes on OpenSecrets and FactCheck, Gingrich, Romney, Obama, Rahm, etc. are all shown to be cancerous. The shining moral light in this is Ron Paul. And even if he's a long shot, I truly believe him the only moral and reasoned vote for a Catholic, even if it is a long shot. The stakes are too high. Dare to hope. RP 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  17. If anyone here is serious about finding an end to abortion that doesn't involve *hoping* a judge or two dies off or retires and *hopefully* we'll have a conservative in the WH. Ron Paul will return the vote to the states, and overnight we could see 40% of them outlaw abortion. Riddle me this friends: do abortion numbers rise or fall when a conservative is in office?

    Moreover, Santorum and ever other candidate is against Holy Mother Church when it comes to wars, being the police state, etc. This idea that we are responsible to overthrow governments and replace them with someone more 'democratic' is completely anti-Catholic. That's going to work out great in Iraq and Libya here in the next ten years...

    Why do military members support Ron Paul 4 to 1 over the other candidates? Because while they are noble and follow orders, they know they are locked in an unjust war that is reaping no direct benefits for our country. And honestly, who cares if Iran gets a nuke? If they do, and threaten Israel, let's watch as Israel wipes them off the face of the earth (not that anyone wants that) because Israel is a SOVEREIGN nation who does not need our help (see Netanyahu's speech about that on YouTube).

    We Catholics must support Ron Paul who has the BEST chance of beating BHO (he will CRUSH him with the independents and many liberals as well), because if he isn't the candidate and runs third party, there are enough people who are 'awake' that he will receive an incredible amount of votes taken from the neocon establishment.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ron Paul will return the vote to the states, and overnight we could see 40% of them outlaw abortion.

    Wow, I didn't know Ron Paul had such amazing powers. Will he also bring about the return of unicorns and fairies?

    Moreover, Santorum and ever other candidate is against Holy Mother Church when it comes to wars, being the police state, etc.

    One of the great things about being a Ron Paul supporter is you get to complain about supposedly hyperbolic statements about your candidate but then turn around and make even more hyperbolic statements about everyone else. God love ya.

    Why do military members support Ron Paul 4 to 1 over the other candidates?

    They actually don't, but hey, when have actual facts gotten in the way of your daydreams.

    We Catholics must support Ron Paul who has the BEST chance of beating BHO

    The sad thing is you actually believe this. You probably also believe the real Charlemagne will rise from the dead and bring about the rise of the Fisher King.

    Paulistas always wonder why they're mocked. It's because you present so many delicious opportunities for mockery.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Gimmie a break, homer:

    You say talk about polemics and naivete, then you go on to bash everyone else, calling them "clowns" and just flat out state that RP will not threaten our national security - AS IF IT'S TRUE!

    The fact is that in reference to an Iranian atomic weapon RP has said MANY TIMES, They have a right to defend themselves, don't they?

    That is INSANITY. Iran is, right now, building nukes. Iran, right now, is planning to use them on Israel and the US. They have said as much. And we have every reason to believe that it is true. They are at war with us, because their religion requires it. No matter what we do that will remain the fact.

    A single weapon launched from a ship based missile off our coast and detonated over the CONUS would destroy the entire electrical infrastructure of the country in a flash. Imagine every electrical device, every transmission media - destroyed. 18 months from now?

    Not only is it possible it is likely. So- you among those who don't believe in EMP? Fine. Hug your Winnie the Pooh tight to your chest when you sleep. He'll keep you safe.

    And RP's plan to stop it? "Aw shucks, you know, let's invite them over for falafel or something. Has anyone ever tried that? Well HAVE they? Maybe they just want to be loved, you know? Doesn't eveyone just want to have falafel and be loved? This is what's wrong with our foreign policy. We need less war and more falafel."

    Their religion REQUIRES that they destroy us. It requires that they destroy a third of all Muslims in the process as well. So your regular run of the mill means of deterrence are not going to work. Neither will harsh language, or holding hands.

    A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for the Iranian bomb. Anyone who thinks this is a good idea is not... correct.

    BTW: What does asymmetric warfare have to do with is? This is not a discussion about the means of stopping Iran. That would necessarily include AW and OOTW. The point is: Ron Paul is the only guy out there who doesn't care if they get the bomb or not.

    BTW2. If Allen West was dead (God forbid) he would roll over in his grave. You claim to be a supporter/fan boy whatever. He doesn't want Iran to have a bomb either.

    BTW3: Any idea what is happening - right now, in Saudia Arabia, in Turkie? They are ALREADY working on their nukes - to counter Iran.

    So, in sum. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for:
    -The Iranian bomb
    -Which WILL be used on Israel and the US
    -A new nuclear arms race in the Middle East with a very high probability of nuclear exchange.

    The sad thing is there is nearly an endless list of reasons not to vote for him.
    1. Back to the gold standard which will limit the size of the global (and American - duh!) economy,
    2. Heroin and crack galore
    3. Legal prostitution, etc. etc. etc.

    Idiotic doesn't even come close.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Ron Paul will return the vote to the states, and overnight we could see 40% of them outlaw abortion."

    Professor Boing-Boing can do that? He's magic.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Archbold,

    I would love to see you give anything resembling a fair shot to Ron Paul. Your straw-man, ad hominem, polemical, dismissive comments towards him show you to be incredibly small and intellectually dishonest.

    Ron Paul has some of the clearest arguments based on some of the most reasonable economic and political philosophies I have ever read or heard, and I have a degree in philosophy and I studied theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. Basically, I am a strong Catholic who is passionate about the common good, and I have found that the best pursuit of that common good would be by voting for him-- just about everything he says makes perfect sense. That is, if you can get over yourself long enough to actually approach it.

    I seriously doubt you're man enough to actually handle that though. I'm seriously disappointed in a website I once thought was about the pursuit of Truth.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Paul: With respect, you seem to take this very seriously. Why then do you have no problem with nuclear annihilation?

    Do you really think that it is right and just to allow millions of innocent lives to be lost just because some of us are too tired to stand up and oppose evil? Did you learn while studying theology that sometimes Satan take a break? Did they teach you in Rome that after the Iraq war is when peace would rein on the earth?

    Do you really think that pretending something isn't there makes it disappear?

    The "conversation" about RP borders on the ridiculous and it is hard to take his supporters seriously at all.

    But there are many good thoughtful people who support him for the same reasons that people supported Obama: Hope.

    They HOPE for no more wars. They HOPE for less government, for a stronger economy. But what they all seem to have in common is an ignorance (willful or otherwise) of the realities of the world we are in.

    No offense, but your degrees in Theology and Philosophy don't necessarily qualify you to claim higher ground assessment of the serious economic and national security positions Paul takes - which are ludicrous. They are beyond silly. They don't even call for a serious response! (Yet here I am trying anyway. For the sake of the world)

    It is very tough to respond to RPaulists whose rabid ignorance of national security and moral welfare concerns is so extreme. It sure is very temping to merely call him a poopy pants and be done with it. The RP arguments are so extremely at odds with common sense and reality. It is all very much wishful thinking. (I say this as a person who actually does agree with many things that Ron Paul says. But where he is wrong, he is SO VERY wrong that is renders every other position he takes meaningless)

    If it is the truth that you are looking for, I submit to you that you are the one who is choosing to look the other way. The truth is as stated. Ron Paul policies will bring about the worst destruction the world has ever seen.

    Ron Paul's policies will lead to further moral decay, at time when what we need is firm moral leadership. Not someone who says that legalizing crack is ok. Not someone who believes in legalizing prostitution.

    6 shots to the stomach:
    I've heard that's what it takes to cure rabies. Maybe this would allow for more clear-headed thinking about the destructive, immoral and asinine nature of Paul's positions.

    Hope, I'm afraid, is not enough.

    ReplyDelete
  23. OK, Used to Post - let's clear up some of your strange statements.

    1. Ron Paul is not in favor of legalizing prostitution. It is not a matter for the federal government to handle. States handle it. That is his position. Quit lying about him.

    2. Same with drugs. Are you even aware that there were no federal drug laws until the 1930s? Are you aware that the "war on drugs" has been an abysmal failure which has resulted in drug gangs, millions of non-violent offenders incarcerated, and a huge increase in the police state and violation of civil rights?

    2. Iran may or may not be developing a nuclear weapon. The recent claims about them developing a weapon are re-hashes of the same old war-mongering element in the U.S. that led to the Iraq fiasco. The war-mongers were saying the exact same thing years ago - "Iran will have a nuclear weapon within 3 years", blah blah blah and on and on. No real evidence to support that.

    3. Did you know that no country with a nuclear weapon has ever been attacked by the U.S.? Could that be a reason that Iran might want one? Then they will have confidence that the U.S. will not attack them, like 1953 when their democratically elected leader was overthrown by the U.S. and the puppet Shah was installed as dictator. How would you like it if your government was overthrown by China and a puppet installed? Would you be licking the Chinese boots? Why do you expect the Iranians to lick your boots?

    3. In your world, some countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons and others are not. Why is that? Who decides that? Why does the war-mongering, child-killing, homo-marrying U.S. get to have nuclear weapons but other sovereign nations do not? Are you aware that the U.S. is the ONLY country to have ever used nuclear weapons, and against a civilian population at that? How disgusting is that?

    3. Your warmongering candidates are the ones who will result in more destruction worldwide - exactly what we have seen in the last 10 years with the war-mongering Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Obama and their corporate-government-media fascist establishment. All this warmongering hatred of anyone who does not lick the
    American boots is what makes the U.S. and the world a less safe place.

    4. Are you aware of the moral rot that is
    American society right now? Child-killing, homo-marriage, and the whole ends-justifies-the means morality of a huge majority of the population. And you think the moral, upright, Christian gentleman Ron Paul is going to make this worse? Get a grip on reality, man.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thank you for the kind and charitable remarks to my previous comments gentlemen.

    Seriously come up with a few intelligible things to say instead of referencing unicorns and magic.

    What is your answer to the abortion question? Do abortions increase or decrease when an alleged pro life candidate takes office?

    I am not a Paulbot, or any other word you can think of, and I doubt you would have the stones to say things like that to my face, it's so easy to make fun of people and say horrid things on the internet when you don't have to look them in the eye and account for your words.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Gross. Newt and Romney? Are those really our only choices? Then Obama wins and we have another four years of exactly what we deserve. I'm sad for our country, but I can't say I am surprised.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I apologize for being off about the amount of money RP receives from the military, is is only 71%.

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/9044-ron-paul-campaign-receive-most-military-donations

    ReplyDelete
  27. it's so easy to make fun of people and say horrid things on the internet when you don't have to look them in the eye and account for your words.

    It's so easy to make hysterical claims and hide behind a false bravado when you don't even have the courage to put your own name to your opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  28. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  29. 1. RP is in favor of legalizing drugs and prostitution. Hiding behind the statement "Let the states decide" doesn't make it not so. Some states may decide to legalize. The guise of states rights doesn't obviate the moral obligation to oppose the immoral at all levels.

    2. same
    3. Just plain historically ignorant.
    3. Of course Iran is building a nuclear weapon. Typical hide your head in the sand isolationist crap. Gamble with someone else's life.
    3. you can't count
    4. Why don't I want some countries to have nuclear weapons? Because some countries will use them to kill people. Duh!
    5. Moral rot- yeah. It's everywhere. That why I oppose it - and RP's policies that would spread it around even more.

    what's immoral is not opposing evil, and in fact helping it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Actually Mr Zummo, as I found out while posting on The American Catholic a couple of months ago, it so easy for you, Donald McCleary, and the other posters to hysterically damm someone at a bigot because I dared to question Martin Luther King's being worthy of a memorial in Washington, DC. I rightly pointed ot that MLK was a communist dupe, had communist advisors around him, was a sexual tomcat, a plagiarist, and incited violence by his so-called non-violence tactics wherever he went. Instead of doing a little fact checking, you and the other posters mindlessly chanted the "MLK was a great man who fought against racism mantra". Baloney! He was a race-pimping conman like Sharpton and Jackson. If you can put aside your pride for a few minutes, go to http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html and read about the real MLK, as opposed to the unicorns and magic one you defended. Maybe then you get a dose of that reality, you will be able to understand why Charlemagde, Geronimo, and myself don't believe in the lies pushed by the neo-con establishment. BTW, you can click on my blogger thingee, and get my real name. I don't hide Paul and I don't make false accusations of racism like some of your friends do.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Gee, darn, a nutjob racist is upset about being called a nutjob racist. Shame on me.

    ReplyDelete
  32. To the contrary, Mitt implemented same-sex marriage here in MA with no legislative basis. The Court didn't order him to do anything, but ordered the legislature to change the law (how constitutional is that?) When the legislature declined to do so, Mitt ordered town clerks to issue licenses to same-sex couples, at his own initiative.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Mr Zummo, did you go to that Lew Rockwell link? Also Mr Zummo, namecalling (nutjob racist) is a sign of weakness. Please deal with the facts that I or any of the commentator bring up that upset you rather than resorting to such immature and childish tactics.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Mr Zummo, did you go to that Lew Rockwell link?

    There are only so many hours in the day, and going to a website that I regard as being on par with Daily Kos and Democratic Underground is not how I choose to spend those hours.

    Also Mr Zummo, namecalling (nutjob racist) is a sign of weakness.

    To paraphrase what one of you Paulbots once said to me, it's not namecalling if what is stated is based on facts.

    ReplyDelete
  35. There is nothing historically ignorant about geronimo's statement. please pick up a real history book or watch something other than fox news.

    ReplyDelete
  36. STILL won't vote for Romney UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

    As for the claim someone made in the comments that Romney has been conservative for the last 5 or 6 years, what a jole. When did he EVER govern as a conservative? He NEVER held conservative positions until, conveniently, the day he decided to seek the GOP nomination. He is a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights liberal Republican who is seeking the nomination of a mostly conservative party. Of course he's going to pretend to stake out sorta "conservative" positions (yet curiously won't do anything to try to reach out to conservative grassroots voters).

    I could vote for any of the other candidates (although having to hold my nose to vote for some of them ... such as Newt), but will stay home or vote 3rd party rather than vote for Romney.

    Also, I have never been a Ron Paul supporter, but I am getting a little tired of the sort of Paul bashing that goes on in these threads. He's not at the top of my list (or even 3rd or 4th on my list), but I'd gladly crawl over glass to vote for Ron Paul over Barry Obama. Meanwhile, you couldn't pay me to vote for that fraud Romney.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Maggie: You are incorrect. It is wildly historically ignorant, not just of the history of the region and the relationships between the state actors but of the larger context of global international relations, war, the causes of war, as well as of the Shia religion and the motivations of man.

    Perhaps you agree with some who believe that US actions cause the hatred with leads to violence against the US. If so, this would mean that you are incorrect about that as well. Perhaps you are also unacquainted with the 12th Imam? Once you have become familiarized with who he is and how he is supposedly to come about, you may come to realize how US actions in the region and the world have nothing to do with why Iran WILL USE a nuclear weapon against us and others.

    Until then, as you remain uninformed, perhaps you should be intellectually honest about it, and instead of jumping on someone else's bandwagon and banging their drum, just, you know, sit tight, until you are in a better position to give an opinion.

    As for me: I've over 3200 volumes of nothing but history in my home at the moment (Yes I've read them), I've worked in this field, lived in these areas, know and have good friendships with these people, speak some of their languages and I have a long personal history of craving nothing more than solutions to end the horrors of war. Which I have seen and never want to see again.

    Which is why, the last place I want to see it is here in the US, when we will have no power grid left, radioactive fallout, no ability to rebuild the power grid, millions of deaths and everything that will go along with that.

    (I rarely have a moment for TV. But bashing Fox news does nothing for your arguments. Last time I had it on I was watching Ron Paul give ANOTHER interview.)

    ReplyDelete
  38. @Jay Anderson:
    It isn't "Paul Bashing" to point out that a vote for him is a vote for an Iranian nuclear weapon and to further point out that it will be used to kill us. Rather, it is a moral obligation to say so.

    We all have a moral duty to cast our votes with a properly formed conscience. I can not fathom how any Catholic could vote for someone who takes such a position, and then sort of nonchalantly risks the lives of millions. That is "unconscionable".

    Many, prefer to live in ignorance or to simply not believe in the facts, because... that is easier. Who the heck wants any more conflict? I sure as heck don't. It would be WAAAAY easier for me to support the "let just shake hands and I know we'll be friends" approach, but that would ignore reality of what is happening and what is about to happen.

    We all have a duty to face the truth - even though right now the truth really sucks.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Tthere is nothing historically ignorant about saying that the U.S. overthrew the democratically elected president of Iran in 1953 and set up an authoritarian regime which was in place until 1979.
    I said nothing about why Iran might want a nuclear weapon. All I said was that there was nothing HISTORICALLY inaccurate about geronimo's statement about Iran. Speculating about motivations behind use of nuclear weapons is largely based on opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  40. @Maggie:
    Ignorant and accurate are two different things. One may be accurate and still ignorant. Sigh... is my point that unclear? I am saying: that statement of historical fact is IRRELEVANT and ignorant of EVERY OTHER historical fact that supports my position. It is a non-sequiturious statement of history.

    "Speculating about motivations behind use of nuclear weapons is largely based on opinion."

    I have edited and toned down my response to that line 3 times now. As I do not want to be as insulting to you as you were to me.

    However, it is a ridiculous thing to say.

    1. Discernment of the motivations of man is always based on opinion. Unless you are God.

    2. We are not talking about buying shoes. We are talking about nuclear weapons. We do not have the luxury to suppose that maybe they are LYING about their ENTIRE THEOCRACY and everything they have said about their plans to destroy Israel, and their need to destroy the United States, etc.

    This is my whole point. Ignore this at MY peril and the peril of every other person. That is unbelievably... you know what? I don't even have words for it.

    I would beg you and anyone else who believes that they know that Iran has peaceful intentions to educate themselves, pray, and then ask yourself if your comfort and the comfort and ease of your family and every other family in this country is a fair trade off to the possibility of us all being dead. Ask yourself if you think it is morally correct to risk it. Ask yourself if it is morally correct to NOT learn about what really motivates them and why they are not like any other country or movement. (Do you know who the 12th imam is yet?)

    Do you doubt that Al-Qaeda would nuke us if they could? Would you let them have a nuke? What would you be willing to do to stop them? Are you willing to bet the lives or your family that Iran won't give them one?

    UTP out:
    God bless. Really.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @Used to post
    "You say talk about polemics and naivete, then you go on to bash everyone else, calling them "clowns" and just flat out state that RP will not threaten our national security"

    True enough. I shouldn't have used the word 'clown'

    I also didn't type it right the first time. What I meant to say in my post is that RP may preach getting out of everyone elses' backyard, but covert and special forces missions in conjunction with Mossad will happen and continue to happen on a more frequent basis, as we saw just a few days ago at the nuke plant. I like that style of warfare. Let's send in small groups to do big damage to evil, rather than putting 200,000 men in the desert.

    Just like Obama, the manila folders that land on any president's desk will drastically change what actually gets implemented, and what gets talked about a lot.

    http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/12/13/ron-paul-supports-george-w-bushs-foreign-policy/

    The link is to a video that is just clips of GWB running in 2000. He almost perfectly articulates RP's own foreign policy. I think both men are correct. A dozen 9/11s won't change my belief that this version of GWB's foriegn policy continues to be the best chance we have today. As a sustainable policy for the country, and as something which the republican brand desperately needs.

    Iran's threat is real and it might be imminent. But we will never really know just what intel is out there, and how it's being acted upon. A President Paul simply wouldn't have the means to just yank the carpet out from under the military, although sending hundreds of thousands of soldiers into foreign countries for "nation building" would be a thing of the past. I welcome that policy with open arms.

    Another thing: We just suspended millions of dollars to a nuclear-armed country who is giving shelter to the very people we are actually fighting at the moment. That seems like a more immanent threat than the Iranians trying to keep the sand out of their beakers long enough to figure out how to make a bomb.

    There's also North Korea (remember them?!). Are we going to send in soldiers to these two countries? What if Russia defends Iran or NK? Active American foreign policy is an endless rabbit hole of hypotheticals, and a great platform to run on is to say that you will engage it as little as possible. I think it's over-the-top to say that a vote for a person means everyone gets nuked.

    No, pulling out of every conflict area in the world won't make some of the leaders and imams of Islamic countries stop seeking the restoration of the caliphate, or the subjugation of secularism in the world, or the end of democracy. But it does seem like these days, every tyranny that that is shattered is replaced with something worse. We certainly aren't making the world any happier with all the money we are pouring out. So, let's try something differet.

    I guess making two posts defending Ron Paul now cristens me as a 'PaulBot'. I'm thirsty-- someone get me some koolaid?

    ReplyDelete
  42. @homer:

    HEY NOW! THAT was a cool response! Very refreshing to actually have some well-thought out and articulated points out there rather than the same drivel we've been seeing. I want to answer and will when I have a bit more time. Duty calls at the moment, but I appreciated this.

    one quick thing: again - I was never discussing any particular type of preferred warfare or solution. My very simple point was that it is insane and inane to suggest that it's "okay" for Iran to have a nuke. It isn't. (Ex. you never saw me suggesting 200k troops anywhere. diff topic all together.) gotta split, but thanks for being logical at least!

    ReplyDelete
  43. So the great pro-life "conservative" Catholic Blogger is endorsing commie faux conservative Mormon Mitt Romney???

    That is certainly your right but just MAYBE you should shut the heck up about Obama because they are indistinguishable.

    Too bad you bloodthirsty baby bombing (apparently its A-OK once they're born)Neocons can't live under the looting, murdering thugs you support and the rest of us can't have the leadership of a REAL man of principle. How many of you Neocons who are too SCARED of liberty (Oooooo, I need laws to tell me what drugs I can use and to not be a prostitute!)and want us bombing and nuking other people because they MIGHT someday be able to fight back were ever in the military? I bet you are all a bunch of chickenhawks.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Says the anonymous poster.

    And how this article can be read as an endorsement of Romney is beyond me. Saying the equivalent of "I'd rather eat 5 pounds of broken glass than vote for Romney, but he's better than Newt" is quite the rousing endorsement, isn't it? It's sure to motivate the readers of this blog to run out and support Romney.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "Too bad you bloodthirsty baby bombing (apparently its A-OK once they're born)Neocons can't live under the looting, murdering thugs you support and the rest of us can't have the leadership of a REAL man of principle. How many of you Neocons who are too SCARED of liberty (Oooooo, I need laws to tell me what drugs I can use and to not be a prostitute!)and want us bombing and nuking other people because they MIGHT someday be able to fight back were ever in the military? I bet you are all a bunch of chickenhawks."

    I would personally like to than the Paulbots for single-handedly rescuing the tinfoil industry in this country.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "Too bad you bloodthirsty baby bombing (apparently its A-OK once they're born)Neocons can't live under the looting, murdering thugs you support and the rest of us can't have the leadership of a REAL man of principle. How many of you Neocons who are too SCARED of liberty (Oooooo, I need laws to tell me what drugs I can use and to not be a prostitute!)and want us bombing and nuking other people because they MIGHT someday be able to fight back were ever in the military? I bet you are all a bunch of chickenhawks."

    I would personally like to thank the Paulbots for single-handedly rescuing the tinfoil industry in this country.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "I would personally like to thank the Paulbots for single-handedly rescuing the tinfoil industry in this country."

    This is what passes for rebuttal of specific points in Neocon think, ridicule and smear while ignoring the points, straight out of Alinskys playbook.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "This is what passes for rebuttal of specific points in Neocon think, ridicule and smear while ignoring the points, straight out of Alinskys playbook."

    No points were made, only abusive insults slung by someone too cowardly to post under his own name. The reference to Alinsky of course is merely another slur, completely devoid of substantive content.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Don, if there's anyone rescuing the tinfoil industry in this country it's you and your parrots at TAC. Any group of people who can't or won't understand that
    Martin Luther King was a radical socialist surrounded by Communists, who was an out of control sex addict, and who deliberately provoked violence in his so called 'non-violent' demonstrations are certainly doing their part to keep the tinfoil industry alive!
    Oh,btw, Mr Zummo, since you won't go to Lew Rockwell.Com to read that article about King by Epstein, why don't you go to RenewAmerica.Com instead. They have several articles about your great hero that say the same things I have said about him. Or are those people 'racist nutjobs' too? Remember, TAC and RA both sponser Real Catholic TV so maybe you should read those articles to see if you're wearing your tinfoil hat too tight.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Stephen, still smarting because I banned you from TAC? You'll get over it. I banned you because you are obviously eaten up with hate of blacks and jews.

    A typical example of a comment from you in the thread you referenced:


    "Don, E Michael Jones would disagree with you on all your replys to Kevin J. in his book “The Slaughter Of The Cities” he documents that the destruction of the inner cities was planned by liberal social enginers to deliberately destroy Catholic neighbourhoods and in “The Revolutionary Jew” he shows that the so-called “Civil Rights” movement was created and controled by liberal New York Jews, not to help blacks gain their rights, but to use the Blacks to achieve their own goals of political aggrandizement. heck the only black guy they had on board for years was W.E.B DuBois, who ironically was a segregationist and a spporter of Planned parenthood.(Then called the American birth Control League.)"

    Here is a link to the post and comment thread at The American Catholic:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/10/18/the-rev-dr-martin-luther-king-jr-memorial-preaching-civil-rights-without-a-mention-of-their-divine-origin/

    My closing comment Stephen to you is the same admonition I gave you in that threat:

    "Blacks were denied their rights Stephen because of simple racism. Your attempts to justify it are wrong. If you had been born with a black skin instead of a white skin you would regard such attempts to justify the treatment of Blacks as third class helots as completely shameful, which, indeed, they are."

    ReplyDelete
  51. Uncomfortable and ignored facts are that the NAACP was founded by Jewish whites, the Catholic slaughtering Bolshevik leadership was disproportionately comprised of Jewish intellectuals and the slaughter of Christians by those Jewish led commies dwarfs the German extermination of Jews. "Man of the cloth" MLK was a communist, plagiarizing serial adulterer. Is making people aware of these facts racist and anti-semitic? No, merely politically incorrect. And whose purposes does it serve to ignore and demonize truth? Banning people who speak truth simply hurts your own site, people will eventually understand what is going on and go where they are not lied to.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Furthermore, to cry crocodile tears over the racism suffered by blacks of a previous generation by perpetrators of another generation while CALLING for the current extermination of Muslims who have done nothing to us reeks of hypocrisy. People are flawed but their natural habit is to desire to associate with their own kind. To force association is a recipe for trouble. Bigotry is simply to believe that your way is superior than other ways. Are we not all bigots? Shouldn't we be? Why is having a belief in the superiority of your own traditions and values, your own ethnic group "wrong" and who decided this?

    ReplyDelete
  53. CALLING for the current extermination of Muslims who have done nothing to us reeks of hypocrisy.

    No one is calling for the extermination of Muslims. That you resort to this bit of infantile fantasy just further illustrates that you people are all a couple of cards - probably an entire suit - of a full deck.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I'm I still smarting from being banned from TAC? Nope Don, I've got a really thick hide. BTW, thanks for posting that link to your site and that article. People who are not 'McCleary's Parrots' will notice that all my argements against King are based on the man's politics, lack of Chrstian faith and his sexual degeneracy, not his race. You and your parrots were the ones who injected racism into the discussion as a dishonest means of discrediting my facts. As a Catholic and an officer of the court you should be ashamed to such unethical tactics in winning an arguement.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "No one is calling for the extermination of Muslims."

    Yes. Attacking Iran, Iraq, and every other Muslim country Israel dislikes is just to "spread democracy" because "they hate our freedoms". LOL!

    " That you resort to this bit of infantile fantasy just further illustrates that you people are all a couple of cards - probably an entire suit - of a full deck."

    Predictable lame Neocon Trotskyite smear. Boring.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "As a Catholic and an officer of the court you should be ashamed to such unethical tactics in winning an argument."

    Hilarious Stephen, but that is the most charitable construction of all your comments in that thread regarding blacks and Jews.

    "Predictable lame Neocon Trotskyite smear. Boring."

    Neocon and Trotskyite are typical, and boring, substitutes for thoughts resorted to by anonymous Paulbots on the internet. Few political movements in our history have been as devoid of anything appproaching reasoned argument by its acolytes.

    ReplyDelete
  57. "Neocon and Trotskyite are typical, and boring, substitutes for thoughts resorted to by anonymous Paulbots on the internet. Few political movements in our history have been as devoid of anything appproaching reasoned argument by its acolytes."

    And the "Paulbot" smear, yawn, you guys need some new marginalizations. People are starting to see how you would rather call names than make substantive arguments (which you hilariously accuse me of) ...but that WAS Lenins tactic. It just doesn't work as well on the internet where people can read for themselves. As for being anonymous, I don't know or care who the heck you are, you may think you are a hotshot but it is only the ideas that are important. Never heard of "Publius"?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Brave Anonymous, when attempting to respond to an argument it is best not to simply reaffirm, by one's own response, as you just did, the accuracy of your opponent's observation.

    ReplyDelete
  59. LOL! Not even close. Anonymity bothers you because it is harder to distract readers from the points with ad hominem, the focus is kept on the argument rather than personalities. You are not an opponent until you at least attempt to prove me wrong...and calling me a "Paulbot" and alluding to tinfoil hats is name calling and smearing to marginalize. THAT is what is cowardly. And that technique of marginalizing viewpoints with which you disagree rather than taking the time to prove them wrong is out of the Alinsky playbook, like it or not.

    ReplyDelete
  60. And Don, there was nothing racist in Steves TAC comments you posted. Just uncomfortable facts. Social engineers have been people pushing for generations. Ms. magazine was a CIA front, Buckley was CIA...which explains the rise of the Neocons and the demonization of the Old Right 'til both "parties" do the same things.The Gramscian slow march through the institutions, infiltration and subversion.
    But that's crazy talk, right? All those commies, pervs and homosexuals who have nearly ruined the Church, that was all just coincidence and the result of evil celibacy. But who could want the destruction of the Church?? The family?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Haha - risk MIT-igation

    ReplyDelete
  62. Just a thought ... or two

    With Arizona's old Mr. Magoo, we had a choice of either Obama or Obama-lite in 2008. With Romney, we would be given that same choice again, imho. (sigh)

    As someone who used to enjoy Michelle Bachman's speeches on the floor of the House, I wish that she would try to elevate herself in debates, instead of trashing Newt Gingrich to try to bring him down to her level. That's a sleazy tactic of the Democrats and other bitchy gossips.

    She should recognize, also, that her attractiveness and her popularity as a Congresswoman do not translate into qualifications to run for President. She is [way] out of her depth, imo, to which, no doubt, she would respond with the same slimy tactic that she used on Gingrich, accusing me of being "sexist", just as, with the same cheap shot, she recently picked up on MSNBC's goading and snidely insinuated that Gingrich is a "sexist" for having legitimately criticized her.

    BTW, did I mention that I am a [huge] Newty fan?

    But you are entitled to your opinions. Ain't America grand? :)

    ReplyDelete
  63. BTW, I'm not [that] anonymous. I'm the [other] anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Okay, be that way. Don't talk to me. See if I care. :(

    ReplyDelete
  65. Back on the subject of Newt's fitness for office, his erratic behaviour may have a base in mental illness. Bi-polar, to be exact. I have had experiances with mentally ill people, one who was bi-polar, and based on those experiances, I would not want Gingrich as POTUS. Even when a person with bi-polar is on meds, they can still be flakey as hell, becase bi-polar is a very tricky illness to treat. The thought of some like Newt being under the pressure that the office of the POTUS would bring down on him is frightening to think about. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=377397 has this distrubing information

    ReplyDelete
  66. Anonymous, who are you talking to? Newts not fit for office. The man is a liar and a cheat, talks out of both sides of his mmouth. Why would you trust a man who cheats on his wives? Think he won't cheat you?
    BTW, Obamas mama worked for the CIA, too. Another coincidence.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Everyone...it's right in front of you. Please, give him a second look!

    http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2011/12/19/dont-settle-rick-perry-for-president/

    ReplyDelete
  68. It's right in front of you alright:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_qarzHwFso&feature=related

    ReplyDelete
  69. I do not want the establishment Republican Party to dictate the candidate and actions by this group have solidified that I will not support Romney ever. No vote for president if this attack continues on anyone who appears to challenge their selected guy. I will never vote for a Democrat, but have sat out elections before when the establishment guy like Dole is thrust down our throats. This is anything but balanced or fair and although I had not made my mind up on Newt, this is a hatchet job.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Newt is "mentally ill", and a "liar", too???

    HA Ha HA HA HA HA HA Get a grip, and get real.

    Well, I suppose that if you think that Carter,
    Clinton and Obama are sane and moral, you will
    think that Newt is a kook, unfit to be POTUS.

    I'm sure that your bizarre comments make perfect sense to you. They won't make sense to any rational person.

    BTW, ad hominem attacks aren't valid arguments. They show that you don't have legitimate arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  71. I don't have a problem with Obama. His misbehavior was predictable. He doesn't know any better.

    I have a problem with the ditzy college kids and the ditzy women and the ditzy Jews who voted for Obama for no other reason than because they thought that it would be so cool to have our first black president ..., regardless of the facts that he is a useless empty suit, a smarmy street hustler and a pretentious, decadent dilletante who has a history of being a chronic screw-up and who doesn't have any executive, managerial or leadership skills or any other qualifications to be president, absolutely none whatsoever. In fact, those ditzy college kids, ditzy Jews and ditzy women could have randomly selected any black man on the street, and their pick would have done just as good a job, if not even a better job than Obama has done, imo. The Obama Administration has been an unmitigated disaster. All of them are chronic screw-ups. For which we can thank the damned fools who elected them ..., imho. :)

    ReplyDelete
  72. Anonymous12/20, I never said anything in favour of Carter, Clinton, or Obama. I never cared for any of them or their performance in the office of the POTUS.
    As I've already said, I have had experiance with mentally ill friends and loved ones. Gingrich has mental illnesses in his family and some of his behaviors indicate a possibility of bi-polar. The thought of him cracking under the pressure of the office of the Presidency is scary beyond belief. It is not an ad hominem attack on any of his policies by using what could be a very possible mental illness to disqualify him. Even if his policies were agreeable to me, I still wouldn't want him to be President. Mental illness is bi-partisan, so it wouldn't matter if Newt was Republican or Democrat, I still wouuldn't want him exposed to the pressures of the presidental office, especially the way the world is today.

    ReplyDelete
  73. You're entitled to your opinions, Steve, and that's what they are, just your opinions. (And specious arguments.) No substance. No facts. Certain;y nothing that would cause me to reconsider my position on that issue. BTW, Merry Christmas.

    ReplyDelete
  74. BTW, Steve, it seemed to me that Herman Cain exhibited thought and speech patterns which caused me to suspect that he is suffering from a neurological disorder, perhaps epilepsy and perhaps a neurological disorder of which he isn't even aware yet.

    But I don't have any tangible evidence which supports my suspicions, and so my suspicions are extraneous and irrelevant. Do you get my drift?

    Herman and Newt could just be a little ditzy. Obama is ditzy. The Clintons are ditzy. Reagan was ditzy. Even GW was a little ditzy. In the USA today, [everybody] is ditzy. So you'll just have to go with the least ditzy candidate. That's the best advice that I can give to you. (sigh) :)

    ReplyDelete
  75. Here's a link to a very interesting take on Newt. http://lewrockwell.com/bonner/bonner526.html
    Anonymous, it's a documented fact that Gingrich's mother was bi-polar. Mental illnesses have a tendancy to run in families. Many of Newt's actions (high spending, out of control sexual behaviours, flight of ideas,exaggerated sense of self) are signs and symptoms of bi-polar. Please read up on bi-polar and compare the known signs and symptoms of bi-polar with Gingrich's actions and behaviours. It will make yor very uneasy about having a President Gingrich in office.

    ReplyDelete
  76. What was it in my post at 1:43am that you didn't understand?

    What scares me, folks, is that [this time] a ditzy electorate will elect Ron Paul to clean up the economy, giving the Muslims a terrific, healthy and vibrant economy when they take over the country.

    What scares me, too, is who Paul or Bachman would appoint as their Vice President, Secretary Of State, Attorney General, CIA Director, Secretary Of Defense, Head of Homeland Security, Secretary Of The Treasury, etc., etc.; fears which I don't have with Gingrich, Romney or Perry or even with Santorum.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I understood your 1:43am post perfectly. You showed no consideration of the dangers of having a man has shown unstable patterns of behaviour all of his life as the POTUS. Also, his political leanings are leftist. He wants to expand the government, hardly a conservative thing. He wants to make the monstrosity we have now 'work better'. We don't need more socialism, we need to get rid of all the socialism that's been piled on us since the 1910's. Ron Paul 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Get a grip, and get real.

    Newt Gingrich has [always] been a staunch, hardcore Conservative, and a trustworthy and loyal Republican, and one of the most savvy, most ethical and most articulate Conservative spokesmen in the party. He has [always] scared the hell out of Democrats, too. That is why they attack him so viciously.

    He was Georgia's most outstanding Congressman. In fact, his accomplishments both as a Congressman and as the Speaker Of The House (elected almost unanimously by his peers) were certainly exemplary if not even almost legendary.

    You're making up preposterous stuff, and you know it. All of your comments have been ludicrous, so ludicrous that it occurs to me that I would like to have some of whatever you are smoking.

    Next to Alabama's Senator Jeff Sessions and North Carolina's former Senator, the late Jesse Helms, Newt Gingrich has always been one of my favorite politicians. So you're barking up the wrong tree here, Steve. You're trying to bullsh*t the wrong person. So give it a rest before you make anymore of a fool out of yourself. Just a suggestion. I'm refraining from making another one. :)

    ReplyDelete
  79. Anonymous at 2:38, you sound ditzy.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Steve, you have to understand. People who support Romney, Gingrich, Bachmann and the rest are not conservative. They are NEOCONSERVATIVE. Neoconservatism is a leftist philosophy that infiltrated the GOP via former lefties like Rick Perry and current lefties like McCain and Romney who label themselves "conservative" to confuse and try to eradicate the idea of real liberty and small gov't conservatism. No real conservative wants the state expanded. Most here do. No real conservative wants a gestapo like Homeland Security, these Neocons love it. They love the war mongering, they think these wars will alwayts be directed at the other guy or some poor "sub human" muslim. And you have to remember that a lot of them are Israeli and Neocon plants, CIA plants who visit blogs like this to spin weak minded people who can't think logically. They usually give themselves away by the name calling and smearing. This whole blog may be a front used to try to mold "conservative Catholic" thinking to leftism while calling it conservatism (which seems on this blog to mean only anti-abortion).

    ReplyDelete
  81. Anonymous at 12/20/11 8:31 PM, I understand what you are saying about the neo-cons. That's why I'm a Paul supporter.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment