In 1999 he held that Roe shouldn’t be reversed. Now that’s changed like everything else this “maverick” has previously espoused. I thought that you were for a reversal of Roe. The only way that is going to happen is by nominating Scalia-type judges to the federal bench, especially the Supreme Court. Yet, McCain was one of the famous “gang of fourteen”, the group that prevented Bush’s Scalia-type judges from getting on the bench. (Bush’s judicial nominees have been one of the few things he has done well as president.) McCain has aligned himself with the most liberal of Democrats. With McCain we’ll just have another Souter or Ginsburg.
And shame on the NRL for not mentioning Ron Paul, who was even endorsed by “Jane Roe” of Roe v. Wade, as being pro-life. He is as pro-life as anyone else running for president. You even praised Thompson, who was even behind Paul in most primaries before he dropped out. Please feel free to let me know why you praise Thompson and totally disregard Paul. The candidate that most resembles John Paul II on life issues is unquestionably Ron Paul. He’s against abortion; against the death penalty; against the preemptive, unnecessary war with Iraq (which, by the way, has killed thousands of innocent civilians, an unforeseen consequences of that ill-advised war); against the destruction of (or at least the taxpayer financing of the destruction of) human embryos.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Just the other night I was bemoaning the way the Republican establishment pretends RP does not exist. They are in no way interested in the voice of the people. This goes along with something I started to say under the "lesser of two evils" post: The Republican party is going to split here before long. But I digress.
It's a shame that NRL can do no better than Rush, Hannity, the Louisiana Republican party, et al.
As far as McCain goes, on a personal level I like him a lot. Particularly I like the fact that he, like RP, is not afraid to speak his mind and/or state the obvious. As far as pro-life goes, I trust him over Romney to do the right thing by far.
If it comes down to McCain vs. Clinton or Obama, I'll have to see if there is a third party candidate and weigh the pros and cons.
Civis, do you think McCain would be better than Romney on 1) tax-cuts and spending cuts, and 2) nominating originalist judges?
I must say I do respect McCain regarding his stance on torture and gitmo issues. You can take his position without granting citizenship rights to these suspected terrorists.
But McCain is so off the mark with war. He will undoubtedly bankrupt this country with his endless war. We thought Bush was a puppet of the neo-cons. Wait until we get McCain. Let's see who the Weekly Standard is supporting? That will show us who the big goverment, big war conservative is.
I wish I could trust McCain over Romney like you do. They both frighten me, just McCain more.
Well, I trust McCain over Romney in pro-life. As far as the war goes, neither one of them is going to get us out of the Middle East. Maybe the question on the war would be which would be less likely to expand the so-called "war on terror."
As far as fiscal responsibility goes, I don't have much hope. I think we are on a collision course with bankruptcy that none of the "leading" contenders would be likely to stop.
As far as judges go, I was suckered into helping elect the worst president in American history on that issue.
According to Newsmax, McCain was quoted as saying:
“It’s a tough war we’re in. It’s not going to be over right away. There’s going to be other wars. I’m sorry to tell you, there’s going to be other wars. We will never surrender, but there will be other wars.”
We're screwed.
The reason RP doesn't get news attention is because he doesn't support positive legislation that most conservatives want to pass. Marriage ammendment, etc. I understand why RP won't legislate issues of that sort; however, it is unrealistic to think that our culture doesn't need some "legislative guidance." Afterall, the culture of today, unfortunately, is far different than that of 1776.
Ron Paul does not get news attention "because he doesn't support positive legislation that most conservatives want to pass" like the Marriage ammendment? I seriously doubt that is what drives news coverage.
Ayway, I don't think that most conservatives want to pass a marriage amendment. Most conservatives don't really care about the marriage amendment.
It sounds to me like you probably know and are friends with people who care deeply about this, but it's far from being the majority's concern--and of course many would be positively against it.
I would suggest that having a marriage amendment formost on one's list of important issues is misplaced for a couple of reasons:
1) Why worry about homosexuals having a union recognized by the state when human life is threatened by a morally baseless war, abortion on demand, and an increasing affinity for euthenasia? In the grand scheme of things, which is more important?
2) You are right about the current culture being different from 1776. The marriage amendment is pretty countercultural and, dare I say, hopeless. Why waste your vote chasing the impossible: Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. You needs to change a lot of hearts and minds before you will pass a marriage amendment.
I do think that protecting and promoting the importance of marriage as a public institution is really of utmost importance. However, passing a federal marriage amendment to do it is not the means to achieve it. Let's face it fellow conservatives, amendments to the US constitution are nearly practically impossible today, especially on issues related to state police powers anyway (e.g., marriage, abortion, euthanasia).
The Republicans in Congress will raise the marriage amendment every year or so just to cater to their conservative base, and we fall for it every time.
There is already legislation at the federal level to mitigate the effects of unions or same sex "marriage" from being recognized in other jurisdictions. Didn't Clinton sign the Defense of Marriage Act? Also, there's a better chance of changing federal court jurisdiction on marriage than getting a national amendment executed. From what I understand, Paul has supported substantive legislation regarding traditional marriage, but he doesn't think an amendment is the way to go.
Hmm. Thanks for the info Jared. Good to know.
civis and jared,
I agree with what you that the passage of a marriage ammendment act is futile in our day and age. Our founding fathers never would have thought such an ammendment would be needed! Our culture is decadent.
That wasn't the point of my post. The point is that our culture and the media perceive RP as a person who doesn't support conservative ideas. My discussions with a variety of people after explaining RP's positions still leaves them concerned. I could have chosen Roe vs Wade as an example. If I understand his position, RP wants to reverse it but he doesn't want to replace it with positive legislation. That position is hard for many conservatives.
My question to you is who can blame conservatives for questioning RP's strict interpreation of the Constitution considering how far our culture has departed from when the Constitution was first written? Who is going to put the brakes on the slippery slope of filth in which we currently live? Will our culture restrain themselves from vile behavior without legislation?
It is obvious it won't and that is why conservatives struggle with RP's positions and why he doesn't get press coverage.
BTW, RP is man way ahead of his time. We haven't fallen far enough for people to pay attention to him! It is a paradox. By the time the culture wakes up and sees the error of its conservative (and liberal) ways it will probably be too late. The conservative is screaming for moral legislation in hopes it will save the culture and RP is saying YOU, not the government, are the moral legislation.
When you live with pigs you get dirty. Is it possible the fence is too high and we need a legislative boost to get out of the pen?
From Lifesite.net: "Paul has sponsored pro-life bills such as H.R. 300, which would nullify the legal force of Roe v. Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state laws regarding abortion. Paul also wrote legislation that would define life as beginning at conception (H.R. 1094) and renewed his call to make legal protections for life from conception." Talk about positive/substantive and procedural legislation on life. Who else has sponsored such legislation?
I must admit, if Paul were running for governor of my state, I wouldn't definitely vote for him because I don't know how'd he do on certain moral legislation. I think the best society is the society that makes it easiest for you to be good. Being too laxed in promoting the health, safety, welfare and morals of the state can be troublesome. I don't know exactly what Paul would do in supporting some things besides abortion and the death penalty if he were, say, the governor of my state. But I do know what he would do as president and that's allow the states to promote and enforce the police powers like was intended from the beginning. Go read dissents by people like Justices Thomas and Scalia on the hot button moral issues. And then go read Paul. Many reasons they say "No" to cases or bills is that certain issues arising from police powers (e.g., laws regarding prostitution, adultery, illegal drug use, euthanasia, etc.) are to be resolved at the local/state level, not the federal level. (I don't want the rule of law trampled upon just because I agree with the majority's position at the time.) Also read Federalist Paper number 10 by Madison.
As Buchanan said, Paul is the most classical conservative running in this race. We've just lost track of what being a conservative is, at least at the federal level. Thomas and Scalia, I think, would be treated just the say way as Paul if they ran for some office at the national level, even though they are loved, most of the time, for their great work on the bench by conservatives. The founders envisioned all three branches of the national government to debate/consider the constitutionality of bills, laws, cases brought before them. That is what Paul tries to do. No president does it anymore. What we do now in Washington is just pass everything and cross our fingers hoping the fed court will let is slide. That's not good government.
And Paul's positions aren't the only positions possible from a small government congressman. The problem is that no one even debates whether something is constitutional or not. Just watch the debates of both parties for president or congress. We just debate policy assuming congress and the president can pass whatever they want whenever they want.
jared,
I agree. RP isn't heard because the present conservative party is no longer conservative when it comes to making laws. They want their conservative ideas federally legislated whether it is constitutional to do so or not.
So, we can conclude that RP is not being heard because he is a true republican conservative and the republican party is mostly made of psuedo republican conservatives.
He can't be heard because he is in the wrong party. He either needs to compromise on his methods or start a new party from which to run. He ran libertarian at one point, no?
I believe RP ran as a libertarian in 1988. He won't run third party again though. He's a Republican and doesn't plan on changing. Some believe it's best to stay in the party even though it's faltering and try to change it from within.
Post a Comment