Elections Have Consequences

Friday, March 31, AD 2017

 

The next time someone tells you there is no difference between the parties on abortion, look them in the eye and call them a liar:

 

With a rare tie-breaking vote from Vice President Mike Pence, the Senate on Thursday sent a bill to President Donald Trump’s desk giving states permission to withhold federal family planning funds from Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

Pence and Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson, who is recovering from back surgery and used a walker inside the chamber, were dramatically summoned to the Capitol to help pass the measure by a razor-thin margin.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Elections Have Consequences

  • “Mark Shea hardest hit.”

    I don’t know how he can now argue that he is not in proximate, material cooperation with evil as a strong supporter of the Democratic Party.

  • There is a difference between the parties on this issue. It’s why, despite everything, I will continue to vote Republican until there is a better choice. However, the party of death will never be the better choice.

  • Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, the nauseating GOP Alaska Senator who claims to be Catholic but is a bought and sold stooge for Planned Parenthood, certainly voted against the measure. Murkowski is almost as bad a Barbara Milkulski, the former Maryland Senator. People with Polish surnames who support Planned Parenthood, whose founder saw Slavs as subhuman, deserve the paddle on the rear end that Foghorn Leghorn gave the barnyard dog in the Looney Tunes cartoons.

  • Here in Texas, Planned Parenthood of Houston opened the largest abortion facility
    in the nation– a 78,000 square-foot behemoth. The Houston Democrats chose
    that venue for their annual Christmas party. I kid you not. I believe that speaks
    volumes about the Democrats. Planned Parenthood is merely the baby-killing arm
    of the Democrat Party.

Parties

Tuesday, February 3, AD 2015

images3S35R57A

 

John Judis  is a man of the Left, but he is an honest man of the Left.  After the election of Obama he predicted an emerging Democrat majority.  In a first rate piece of analysis in The National Journal, here is what he thinks now:

 

After the 2008 election, I thought Obama could create an enduring Democratic majority by responding aggressively to the Great Recession in the same way that Franklin Roosevelt had responded in 1933 to the Great Depression. Obama, I believed, would finally bury the Reagan Republican majority of 1980 and inaugurate a new period of Democratic domination.

In retrospect, that analogy was clearly flawed. Roosevelt took power after four years of the Great Depression, with Republicans and business thoroughly discredited, and with the public (who lacked any safety net) ready to try virtually anything to revive the economy. Obama’s situation was very different. Business was still powerful enough to threaten him if he went too far in trying to tame it. Much of the middle class and working class were still employed, and they saw Obama’s stimulus program—which was utterly necessary to stem the Great Recession—as an expansion of government at their expense.

In the wake of the dramatic gains Republicans have made during Obama’s presidency, I now read the history of the last 80 years much differently. The period of New Deal Democratic ascendancy from 1933 to about 1968 may well prove to have been what historians Jefferson Cowie and Nick Salvatore have called the “long exception” in American politics. It was a period when Americans, panicked about the Depression, put on hold their historic aversion to aggressive government economic intervention, when the middle and bottom of the American economic pyramid united against the top, and when labor unions could claim the loyalty of a third of American workers. That era suffered fatal fissures in 1968 and finally came to a close with Reagan’s landslide in 1980.

It now appears that, in some form, the Republican era which began in 1980 is still with us. Reagan Republicanism—rooted in the long-standing American distrust of government, but perhaps with its roughest theocratic and insurrectionary edges sanded off for a national audience—is still the default position of many of those Americans who regularly go to the polls. It can be effectively challenged when Republicans become identified with economic mismanagement or with military defeat. But after the memory of such disasters has faded, the GOP coalition has reemerged—surprisingly intact and ready for battle.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Parties

  • The “stimulus” was presented as an exercise in Keynesian economics. In truth it was a political payoff. It wan’t needed.

    I think Judis is not quite that honest. His politics are a failure in their attempt to create utopia. His politics do succeed in destruction.

  • I am not surprised PF that a Leftist like JUdis does not agree with me on policy. What is refreshing is that he had the honesty to pull back a theory about electoral realignment he formulated when the theory did not accord with reality.

  • As always, Mr. McClarey, I defer to your judgment.

    I can live with the fact that there are people with whom I disagree. I leave ’em alone and want no less from them.

    I do see things differently from Mr. Judis in that the Democrat elite is made up of corporate bigshots of all facets of the economy. Obumbler insider Penny Pritzker is a heir to the Hyatt hotel chain. Dick Simon is the biggest owner and operator of malls in the US and is – or was – a big Obumbler supporter. Judis was inferring that he thought Obama would go after corporations. Well, he has gone after those he doesn’t like – coal, for one.

    Mr. Judis overlooked something very important. The Democrats overreach when they get political power. The banking/mortgage/Great Recession fiasco can be laid at the feet of the Democrats. Carter started the political pressure to get banks to loan mortgage money to people who could not afford them. Clinton stepped it up big time. Barney Frank was way too influential in the subsequent mess and the GOP didn’t stop it. Cheap money thanks to Greenspan after 9/11 and banks diving into subprimes along with FNMA precipitated the mess. Most people blamed Bush. It was easier.

    Obumblercare is another overreach. It may go down in flames yet.

  • A “first rate piece of analysis”? Hardly

    “Business was still powerful enough to threaten him if he went too far in trying to tame it.”
    Not true. I’ve worked in two major corporations on the Fortune 50. Believe me, between the IRS, SEC, DoD, DoL, SSA, HIPAA, Sarbanes-Oxkey, Dodd-Frank, etc., etc., they are very tame.

    “Obama’s stimulus program—which was utterly necessary to stem the Great Recession”
    Necessary? Not by any realistic metric. Reagan’s policies would have stopped it in six months – and I write that as a very late comer to his outlook.

    “Reagan Republicanism—rooted in the long-standing American distrust of government, but perhaps with its roughest theocratic and insurrectionary edges sanded off for a national audience”
    What theocratic edges? There hasn’t been an attempt at a theocracy in this country since the Massachusetts Bay colony. Americans who vote their religiously informed consciences support pluralism as much as those who have none, perhaps more so. It is an act of stereotyping to maintain otherwise.

    OK, the paragraph on the ‘Great Exception’ in American politics is on the mark. The core argument is correct. But the writer in his need to maintain his liberal bona fides throws so much slop to his liberal audience that he brings into question his basic analytical and observational skills.

  • “The core argument is correct.”

    Which is what I was addressing. His theory about electoral alignment in favor of the Democrats is what he was taking back, and such a public admission of being wrong takes some fortitude to do. It is more impressive in that his admission is obviously not a result of any ideological conversion but rather through new facts coming forward that countered what he thought would happen based on his theory.

  • “It is more impressive in that his admission is obviously not a result of any ideological conversion but rather through new facts coming forward that countered what he thought would happen based on his theory.”
    True. I wonder what other new facts are needed to counter the rest of his slop? Uh, wait, they are already out there in the public domain. He just has to look.

  • I’ve said for years to the ignorant that will listen ….. Obama’s biggest mistake … and he continues to do so (economically) …. was to create such confusion and unpredictability into the market (mostly via obamacare) … that this paralyzed companies into not investing in their business and people due to a lack in the ability to forecast and plan. They sat on funds and earnings, waiting … waiting for the dust to settle. The recession would have been over far sooner given a more stable, predictable future.

  • “enduring Democratic majority” “a new period of Democratic domination”
    Since the democratic party now seems to be about constantly progressing— on the rapid trajectory to human utopia, it makes me wonder what governmental/social innovations would have awaited us had he been correct. 🙁 How far left could a society actually go and endure with any identifiable structure?

Democrats and the Race Card

Tuesday, September 30, AD 2014

 

Civil Rights

We condemn bigots who inject class, racial and religious prejudice into public and political matters. Bigotry is un-American and a danger to the Republic.

We deplore the duplicity and insincerity of the Party in power in racial and religious matters. Although they have been in office as a Majority Party for many years, they have not kept nor do they intend to keep their promises.

The Republican Party will not mislead, exploit or attempt to confuse minority groups for political purposes. All American citizens are entitled to full, impartial enforcement of Federal laws relating to their civil rights.

We believe that it is the primary responsibility of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions, and this power, reserved to the states, is essential to the maintenance of our Federal Republic. However, we believe that the Federal Government should take supplemental action within its constitutional jurisdiction to oppose discrimination against race, religion or national origin.

We will prove our good faith by:

Appointing qualified persons, without distinction of race, religion or national origin, to responsible positions in the Government.

Federal action toward the elimination of lynching.

Federal action toward the elimination of poll taxes as a prerequisite to voting.

Appropriate action to end segregation in the District of Columbia.

Enacting Federal legislation to further just and equitable treatment in the area of discriminatory employment practices. Federal action should not duplicate state efforts to end such practices; should not set up another huge bureaucracy.

Republican Party Platform on Civil Rights, 1952, when Eisenhower cracked the Solid South

 

 

 

 

One political party for over a century and a half has routinely used appeals based on race to win elections.  The other party, throughout its history, has stood for civil rights for all Americans and denied that government policy should be based on racial discrimination.  The first party is the Democrat Party and the second party is the Republican party.  To get around this simple fact of American political history, some Democrats, especially in election years when the polls are against them, routinely attempt to portray Republicans as racists, in an Alice in Wonderland inversion of the truth.  The latest hilarious example of this mendacious and bold faced attempt to rewrite history is on display at Politico in an article entitled Race and the Modern GOP.  This recycles the claim of an evil Republican strategy to appeal to white racists in the South who switched en masse to become Republicans.

The problem with this is that it is a liberal fable. It didn’t happen that way. The first breach in the solid South was by Eisenhower who ran on a platform of vigorous support for Civil Rights for blacks. Segregationists retained complete control of the Democrat parties in the South and enjoyed electoral success throughout the period in question. The South changing to Republican had to do with the rise of the cultural issues, an influx of northern Republicans following wide spread use of air conditioning and the rapid economic development of the South, and the anti-military hysteria and isolationism that seized control of the Democrats in the wake of Vietnam.

My co-blogger Paul Zummo had an excellent post on this subject :

Along these same lines, Trende postulates that if any real realignment occurred, it took place during the Eisenhower administration. The Eisenhower coalition, as he puts it, pushed the GOP to decisive victories in seven of nine presidential elections. Moreover, the solid Democratic south began shifting towards the Republican party at this point. In fact the south’s gradual shift towards the GOP had begun as early as the 1920s, but the Depression halted Republican advances here. Once the New Deal had ramped up, the Republicans again began making inroads. Republicans began being truly competitive in presidential elections during the 1950s, then started making inroads in Congressional races in the 1970s and 80s, and are finally now the dominant party on the local level.

Trende’s thesis effectively destroys the notion that Republicans only began being competitive in the south once Nixon deployed the “southern strategy” to woo racist southerners after the Civil Rights Act. As already mentioned, the GOP vote share in the south had been incrementally creeping up in the 1930s, with GOP vote shares moving out of the 15-20% range and inching up towards parity slowly and surely. In fact the GOP vote share in the south did not noticeably increase during  the 1960s, but instead crept up in the same incremental 1-2% annual range. Where Republicans really started making dents were with younger southern voters, as older southerners continued to cling to the Democratic party even though the national party’s values no longer matched their own. Considering that younger voters tended to have much more liberal racial views, the transformation of the south into a Republican stronghold has to be explained by something other than racial matters.

Even though Trende doesn’t come right out and say this, if anything the changing electoral map can just as easily be explained by the Democrats pursuing a northern strategy. As the Democrats began appealing to elite northern voters by pushing a more liberal agenda, this drove southerners and midwesterners away from the party. This trend would continue until Bill Clinton pursued a much different strategy, crafting his agenda to appeal to suburbanites and middle income whites. Clinton and the New Democrats were able to rip into Republican strongholds by advancing a more moderate platform. The end of the Cold War, as well as the rise of the Evangelical right, fractured the Eisenhower coalition, allowing the Democrats to win presidential elections.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to Democrats and the Race Card

  • I do believe it was Lyndon Baines Johnson who said, “I’ll have these niggers voting Democratic for 200 years.”

  • Rahm Emanuel Eric Holder and Badrock Obama have shown Americans what the “Chicago Way” is all about. They are the biggest meanest racist that have ever entered into politics.

    Lyndon was a prophet.

  • The differences in the parties is becoming less over time. Both spend beyond their means and refuse to protect life. A third party is not the answer either. For now, it is a game to see how long the American people will remain duped. Meanwhile, our sons and daughters will have less opportunity except for military service. Some who choose this path will be sent to a strange land in the middle east and may never return. The machine grinds on focused on taxes and soldiers. This was the state of Rome before the fall.

  • “and refuse to protect life”

    Untrue. But for the Democrat party legal abortion in this country would be a thing of the past.
    As for Rome, the Republic fought far greater wars than the Empire and imposed far heavier burdens on the Roman cititzens due to the wars, both in taxes and military service. In the later Empire the military forces were numerically less, but they were staffed by barbarian mercenaries, expensive and unreliable, the citizens of Rome long having lost their taste for military service. When people forget how to fight, or lose their willingness to do so to protect their countries, then they are headed for foreign conquest.

  • Don, if you are waiting for republicans to reverse abortion on demand, good luck. The neo-conservative movement in the party has other priorities. Lip service is all that is given to the protection of life. Many voters have been hoping in vain for decades now. Reagan even promised change and swung a block of catholic voters over. The promises were evidently empty. Hoodwinked again!

  • Rubbish Rick. I assume you are bone ignorant of the hundreds of pro-life laws passed by state legislatures since the Republicans took control of them in 2010.

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/more-pro-life-laws-passed-in-last-two-years-than-in-the-previous-decade-pro

    It is the Democrats who view abortion as a sacrament and who fight tooth and nail for it. Next time you comment here, actually research a subject before you bother typing worthless tripe in the comboxes.

  • Pacem, Don and Rick,
    .
    The battleground of the US abortion horror is the federal judiciary. It must be filled with pro-life appointees. Enter peace and justice dem caths (democrat first, catholic somewhere down the deceit chart). As long as US Senate Dems have sufficient votes (What 34 or ?), they have blocked each and every GOP pro-ilfe (extremist!, women’s health!) judiciary appointment. And, when (far too long) the murderous dems controlled the WH and senate, they filled the courts with baby-murderers.
    .
    Rick,
    .
    You twice elected a man as president who had no experience at anything. Here are Obama’s methods: Claim ignorance. Blame subordinates. You are a racist!
    .

    Your half-baked ( you tip your hand with buzz words like “neo-con”) contentions are no more logical than the race card. It appears as if you are one of those that believes: throw against the “wall” a suffiecient number of clots of spucatum tauri and some of it will stick.
    .
    Bless your heart. and thanks for helping to wreck America!

  • Pacem indeed!

    When Newt had control of the House of Representatives, he had a chance to promote pro-life causes. These causes took a back seat to other priorities, specifically those of the neoconservative movement.
    Reagan promised catholic voters action on the abortion issue. This evaporated after he was elected. Look at who he appointed to the supreme court if you need more proof of the points I am making. I am happy to supply you with sound research on the topic.
    I admire your zeal for the pro-life cause but you need to see the truth of the matter before real progress can be made. Both parties care a whit about this issue. One is promoting total moral chaos and the other is promoting total war in the middle east with your tax dollars and more debt. Both usurers and sodomites are in the same circle of Dante’s inferno. This describes the political parties aptly I believe.

  • “When Newt had control of the House of Representatives, he had a chance to promote pro-life causes.”
    Which the Republicans did, and which Bill Clinton vetoed:

    http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/cardinalspba.html

    “Reagan promised catholic voters action on the abortion issue.”

    And he kept that promise. Reagan constantly pushed pro-life legislation despite the fact that he never had a Congress controlled by the Republican. In 1984 he wrote abortion and the conscience of the nation:
    http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/02/06/ronald-reagan-abortion-and-the-conscience-of-the-nation/

    “I am happy to supply you with sound research on the topic.”

    If you were a faithful reader of this blog you would realize just how laughable that offer is. Reagan made three Supreme Court appointments: the first was Sandra Day O’Connor who voted pro-life as long as Reagan was in office; Antonin Scalia who has led the fight against Roe on the Supreme Court; his third pick was Judge Robert Bork, who would have supplied the fifth vote to over turn Roe. His nomination was defeated in the Senate by the Democrats led by Ted Kennedy. His second nominee Douglas H. Ginsburg swiftly withdrew due to questions about marijuana use. The third nominee Anthony Kennedy got through the Senate. His voting record on abortion has been mixed. Upholding Roe but also upholding various restrictions on abortion, including the partial birth abortion ban.

    Your argument that there is no difference between the parties on abortion is rubbish.

  • Rick, I think you are largely right about Newt, but wrong about Reagan. He did everything in his power to assist the pro-life cause, including appointing federal judges who due diligence suggested would be faithful to the constitution and therefore hostile to Roe. That is not a predictable process, but he did well overall but disappointed at the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, conservative jurists tend to give greater weight to the doctrine of stare decisis than their liberal counterparts, making reversals of decided cases more difficult, and Reagan appointees O’Connor and Kennedy were influenced by that. That was not true of Scalia and would not have been true of Bork, both of whom were already on record as being critical of Roe (O’Connor and Kennedy were more circumspect in their opinions, which is common among judges). Just a lazy effort at examining Reagan’s actual actions on abortion (see executive orders and foreign policy decisions, the two areas he actually had power over) demonstrates that his opposition to abortion was genuine.
    And your description of political parties is the same tiresome claptrap that one hears from the pure and uninvolved. The truth is that political parties are by nature big tents composed of uneasy coalitions. The GOP includes many who are passionately pro-life and even more who are uneasy about abortion but view it as a secondary issue to the economy and national security. The Dems include many who view abortion as akin to a Sacrament and even more who are uneasy but want to preserve the option. As Don had pointed out in the past, the abolitionists of Lincoln’s era formed similar imperfect alliances within the GOP, but those alliances were not evidence of a lack of passion or sincerity. Even Lincoln, as much as he abhorred slavery, would have tolerated it indefinitely in necessary to preserve the union.
    Yes, some Republican candidates are indifferent to abortion but simply check the right boxes to win primaries; some are sincerely pro-life and even lose elections because if it. The bottom line is that for the most part the party does a pretty good job given the legal and political constraints (have you even followed what’s going on in Texas?). But because the Supreme Court cheated in Roe, we’re all stuck at playing small ball. It is exceedingly difficult to get a reliably anti-Roe judge appointed to the High Court, and gauging such reliability is perilous given that it is widely understood to be inappropriate for judges to signal in advance how they’ll rule on matters likely to come before them.

  • Like I said in the beginning, America will remain duped for a long time to come. It is by design so do not feel bad about it. The machine grinds on seeking only taxes and soldiers. Consider Rick Santorum who works for the American Enterprise Institute now. He is supposed to be a solid catholic. He gave a speech at ND after he left office that had one theme – bomb Iran. He could have focused on the holocaust here in the USA – infanticide. But he new gets his $ from the AEI. Connect the dots and it should start becoming clear. These virtuous republicans are puppets of the movement mentioned earlier.

    To be fair, you might see significant pro-life legislation in our lifetimes. This is simply due to the opposition not reproducing. It has little to do with the republican party.

  • “He is supposed to be a solid catholic. He gave a speech at ND after he left office that had one theme – bomb Iran. He could have focused on the holocaust here in the USA – infanticide.”

    You don’t know much about Santorum do you? When he was in the Senate his major focuses were the fight against abortion and the threat posed by Iran. The video below is from 2006:

Republican Party Platform 1864

Wednesday, September 3, AD 2014

 

 

Last week we looked at the Democrat party platform of 1864.  Go here to read it.  It was one long attack on the conduct of the War by the Lincoln administration.  Today we look at the Republican platform.

Well, technically it was the platform of the National Union Party, a temporary name given to the Republican party in 1864, the better to attract war Democrat votes.  Hannibal Hamlin of Maine was dumped as Veep and Andrew Johnson, the military governor of Tennessee and life long Democrat, was nominated as Veep as part of this strategy.  The party convention was held in Baltimore, not the friendliest of venues for Republicans, on June 7 and June 8, when the War news was unremittingly grim.  It is striking therefore how uncompromising the platform approved on June 7 was in regard to the War and Emancipation.  Here is the text of the platform:

1. Resolved, That it is the highest duty of every American citizen to maintain against all their enemies the integrity of the Union and the paramount authority of the Constitution and laws of the United States; and that, laying aside all differences of political opinion, we pledge ourselves, as Union men, animated by a common sentiment and aiming at a common object, to do everything in our power to aid the Government in quelling by force of arms the Rebellion now raging against its authority, and in bringing to the punishment due to their crimes the Rebels and traitors arrayed against it.

2. Resolved, That we approve the determination of the Government of the United States not to compromise with Rebels, or to offer them any terms of peace, except such as may be based upon an unconditional surrender of their hostility and a return to their just allegiance to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that we call upon the Government to maintain this position and to prosecute the war with the utmost possible vigor to the complete suppression of the Rebellion, in full reliance upon the self-sacrificing patriotism, the heroic valor and the undying devotion of the American people to the country and its free institutions.

3. Resolved, That as slavery was the cause, and now constitutes the strength of this Rebellion, and as it must be, always and everywhere, hostile to the principles of Republican Government, justice and the National safety demand its utter and complete extirpation from the soil of the Republic; and that, while we uphold and maintain the acts and proclamations by which the Government, in its own defense, has aimed a deathblow at this gigantic evil, we are in favor, furthermore, of such an amendment to the Constitution, to be made by the people in conformity with its provisions, as shall terminate and forever prohibit the existence of Slavery within the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States.

4. Resolved, That the thanks of the American people are due to the soldiers and sailors of the Army and Navy, who have periled their lives in defense of the country and in vindication of the honor of its flag; that the nation owes to them some permanent recognition of their patriotism and their valor, and ample and permanent provision for those of their survivors who have received disabling and honorable wounds in the service of the country; and that the memories of those who have fallen in its defense shall be held in grateful and everlasting remembrance.

5. Resolved, That we approve and applaud the practical wisdom, the unselfish patriotism and the unswerving fidelity to the Constitution and the principles of American liberty, with which ABRAHAM LINCOLN has discharged, under circumstances of unparalleled difficulty, the great duties and responsibilities of the Presidential office; that we approve and indorse, as demanded by the emergency and essential to the preservation of the nation and as within the provisions of the Constitution, the measures and acts which he has adopted to defend the nation against its open and secret foes; that we approve, especially, the Proclamation of Emancipation, and the employment as Union soldiers of men heretofore held in slavery; and that we have full confidence in his determination to carry these and all other Constitutional measures essential to the salvation of the country into full and complete effect. more

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Republican Party Platform 1864

  • Well at least they acknowledge that abolition of slavery by force of arms is unconstitutional (while amazingly invoking the constitution as a grounds to wage war against states), and would require a constitutional amendment. So the notion is at least implicitly recognized that the federal government’s claim to wage a war “against slavery” as Lincoln enunciated (when “maintaining the union” failed to win support of a large part of the northern populace), is clearly an unconstitutional one. One section of the country can’t simply decide it dislikes the proper, constitutional laws of another section and proceed to invade.

    The cynical and extra-constitutional way the federal government got its desired slavery amendments (and the formation of West Virginia) is a story for another time, but again calls into question the sincerity of the pious invocation of the constitution in the platform.

    The other interesting plank is the call for “liberal” immigration. The more things change…

  • Oh, and by June of 1864 there was little serious doubt about the outcome of the war, if pursued. Whether to pursue it to conclusion was a subject of debate in the north, as the opposing platforms indicate, but after Gettysburg, Vicksburg, and the very effective blockade of Southern ports, few knowledgeable observers would conclude that the South had a hope of anything better than a stalemate.

    My own view is that the South should have strongly pursued peace, even at the cost of national survival, given the clear realities by the end of 1863. To continue was only to invite further useless bloodshed. Peace in 1864 might have averted the worst effects of Reconstruction and saved some modicum of federalism.

  • “Well at least they acknowledge that abolition of slavery by force of arms is unconstitutional”

    Not a hint of that in the platform.

    “amazingly invoking the constitution as a grounds to wage war against states”

    The Constitution itself makes plain that the Federal government may fight against rebellions and insurrections.

    “One section of the country can’t simply decide it dislikes the proper, constitutional laws of another section and proceed to invade.”

    Left out that secession business didn’t you Tom? The Southerners, as Lincoln tirelessly said, had nothing to fear from him in regard to slavery within their states. They ignored him, started a war against the Federal government, and set in motion the forces that destroyed slavery. I enjoy the rich irony of that sequence of events.

    “The cynical and extra-constitutional way the federal government got its desired slavery amendments (and the formation of West Virginia) is a story for another time, but again calls into question the sincerity of the pious invocation of the constitution in the platform.”

    It is rich when Confederates who were at war with the Constitution invoke it. West Virginia’s statehood was agreed by the Union government of Virginia and admitted to the Union by Congress. Nothing further had to be done to satisfy the strictures of the Constitution. The people of West Virginia were of course overwhelmingly against secession as their votes indicated at the time of Virginia’s vote on secession. Amendment XIII was duly ratified in proper constitutional form. Since most Confederates contended after the War that they had always been against slavery and that they had not been fighting for slavery, I see nothing for them to gripe about. So far as I know no Southern member of Congress after the War ever proposed repealing the XIIIth.

    “The other interesting plank is the call for “liberal” immigration. The more things change”

    Well, actually things do change, considering that in 1864 the country had 30 millions and today has 350 millions. I also do not think that Republicans have proposed ending legal immigration which, at one million a year, certainly is a liberal immigration law by the standard of immigration laws around the globe.

  • “Oh, and by June of 1864 there was little serious doubt about the outcome of the war, if pursued.”

    Most contemporary observers would have disagreed with you Tom. Grant’s Overland Offensive had rung up 50,000 casualties, Sherman was making little progress, the Red River offensive had ended in defeat, and Breckinridge held the Shenandoah Valley for the South. War weariness in the North was growing. The South came close to winning the War in 1864 by simply outlasting Northern willingness to continue the fight.

Democrat Nightmare Come True

Tuesday, June 18, AD 2013

In regard to the colored people, there is always more that is benevolent, I perceive, than just, manifested towards us. What I ask for the negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us… I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! … And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, don’t disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot box, let him alone, don’t disturb him! If you see him going into a work-shop, just let him alone, — your interference is doing him positive injury.

January 26, 1865-Frederick Douglass, abolitionist and Republican

 

 

State Senator Elbert Lee Guillory (R.La) is at the cutting edge of a trend that is beginning in the South of black elected officials switching to the Republican party.  His statement of why he has become the first Black Republican Senator in Louisiana since Reconstruction is quite eloquent:

 

Hello, my name is Elbert Lee Guillory, and I’m the senator for the twenty-fourth district right here in beautiful Louisiana. Recently I made what many are referring to as a ‘bold decision’ to switch my party affiliation to the Republican Party. I wanted to take a moment to explain why I became a Republican, and also to explain why I don’t think it was a bold decision at all. It is the right decision — not only for me — but for all my brothers and sisters in the black community.

You see, in recent history the Democrat Party has created the illusion that their agenda and their policies are what’s best for black people. Somehow it’s been forgotten that the Republican Party was founded in 1854 as an abolitionist movement with one simple creed: that slavery is a violation of the rights of man.

Frederick Douglass called Republicans the ‘Party of freedom and progress,’ and the first Republican president was Abraham Lincoln, the author of the Emancipation Proclamation. It was the Republicans in Congress who authored the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments giving former slaves citizenship, voting rights, and due process of law.

The Democrats on the other hand were the Party of Jim Crow. It was Democrats who defended the rights of slave owners. It was the Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who championed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, but it was Democrats in the Senate who filibustered the bill.

You see, at the heart of liberalism is the idea that only a great and powerful big government can be the benefactor of social justice for all Americans. But the left is only concerned with one thing — control. And they disguise this control as charity. Programs such as welfare, food stamps, these programs aren’t designed to lift black Americans out of poverty, they were always intended as a mechanism for politicians to control black the black community.

Continue reading...

52 Responses to Democrat Nightmare Come True

  • This is great news! Maybe the black folks are finally seeing the light and understand that the democrats are destroying them. We will need each other if we are to restore our country.

  • There is a long, long way to go. Organizations like the NAACP and the Urban League are extensions of the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party, the most egregious Organized Crime organization in the world, will not willingly let go of their low information voters.

  • That’s inspiring.

  • ” ‘So my brothers and sisters of the American community, please join with me today in abandoning the government plantation and the Party of disappointment. So that we may all echo the words of one Republican leader who famously said, ‘free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we are free at last.’

    The newly minted Republican is a firm pro-lifer and a Roman Catholic. He is a grand addition to the party of Lincoln.”

    Good to hear – at this time when the one at the g-8 from here is bringing the news that the parochial schools are just such a divisive influence on the establishment of his dem agenda. Gracious. So busy wreaking disorder and confusion that people and the yet to be born, given they will be, may notice.

    During a recent campaign visit for E. Markey to replace J. Kerry, a tv commercial was produced; and now , until the 25th, there is the sound of his loud pleas about the Senate and President needing him there. Gabriel Gomez, a former Navy Seal, must be too orderly of an American. (Pray that electronics won’t be garbage in, garbage out again.)

  • Halleluia! Omne laus Deo! Est spes!

  • This is good news. This dude appears to be very intelligent. I’m glad he made this decision, but I cannot help but wonder what took him so long to figure this out. These things I knew since I was a young lad suddenly come as revelation to far smarter people late in their life? Perhaps I should just be happy about this and not look a gift horse in the mouth.

  • The good senator is in for a lot of abuse from the Democrats, both white and black. From the black Dems who think they owe their eternal allegiance to the Democratic Party, and by white Dems who think all blacks belong on their plantation, and those, like Senator Guillory, and Clarence Thomas, Tim Scott, Allan West and others (and formerly Colin Powell) who stray are to be dealt with unmercifully. Black Republicans are perhaps the most despised minority group in America, and among the bravest Americans. Good luck, Senator Guillory!

  • Quite right Joseph, but most great movements start with a few courageous men and women speaking the truth and a accepting the consequences. In the Jewish Talmud it is written that God did not part the Red Sea during the Exodus until one of the Jewish standard bearers had the faith and courage to leap into the Red Sea.

  • Good Morning,

    The delivery is really rather extraordinary. It is spoken simply and directly. A few unassailable facts, an inspiring quote, a direct, specific point and the audience is engaged. The speaker comes off as honest and respectable.

    The public is tuning out to messages of all kinds. Assailed by a constant wave of media, we aren’t hearing very clearly anymore. It often feels like politicians are speaking to one another and not to us. Their messages are convaluted and sidestep deeper questions in a way that gives the appearance of duplicity.

    The GOP needs to simplify its messages, speaking to each issue directly and keeping on track. We don’t just need people who hold our core values, we need to listen to them.

  • Sen. Guillory is indeed a brave man. Let us hope and pray that he can put some backbone in the Republican Party. It has a grave need of some.

  • Maybe this guy can show the gutless GOP leadership what a real man looks like.

  • I know of no member of the Democratic Party who has lost a good night’s sleep over this. If the Repubicans are retreating from their “Southern Strategy” of the 1970s, I welcome it.

  • What Southern strategy would that be Kurt? Not the discredited Democrat myth that the racists who were the core voters for the Democrat party since Reconstruction in the South suddenly switched en masse to the Republican party? That Leftist fable is as on target as MSNBC’s recent flub in calling the late George Wallace a Republican.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html?_r=0

    Republicans began to gain votes in the South in the fifties largely as a result of air conditioning, Eisenhower and an influx of northern Republicans into rapidly economically developing areas of the South. It was Southern Democrats like George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Bull Connor, Orville Faubus, who nailed their political fortunes to a doomed fight to preserve the Jim Crow status quo in the South. The South became Republican gradually, and largely thanks to the national Democrat party embracing cultural causes like abortion uber alles and being anti-military.

  • From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that…but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

    — Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips (1970)

    Of course, before Roe v. Wade, the Democrats lost the deep South in 1964, lost every southern state except Texas in 1968 and lost the entire South to Nixon in 1972. In the first post-Roe election (1976), they actually did better than with Nixon.

  • Goldwater in 1964 largely carried the same Southern states that Ike, the most pro-civil rights President since Grant, carried in 52 and 56. Nixon in 1968 carried Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina and Florida, while losing the South to Wallace, with the Democrats in the South in disarray except in Texas where the remnants of the Johnson machine held the state for Humphrey. In 1972 the Democrats lost the entire nation except for Massachusetts. The Peanut Farmer was a former governor of Georgia and in 1976 straddled the fence on abortion. Betty Ford was outspokenly pro-abortion and effectively undercut Gerald Ford’s very half-hearted opposition to abortion.

    http://www.thenation.com/blog/161884/betty-ford-feminist-social-liberal-republican#axzz2WlsdwM4x

  • Kurt, Kevin Phillips’ words do not mean that the GOP took the South by becoming racists. In fact, Phillips’ strategy, such as it is, failed.

    Louisiana and Arkansas are not controlled by Republican machines. Florida is no southern state in a political sense. Virginia has been infected with Potomac Fever.
    West Virginia still votes Democrat for almost everything bu the Presidency.

  • I think I can safely claim that I am the highest ranking officer of the Democratic Party (our legal name) that comments here, therefore I’ll take on the duty of speaking for the Party.

    Whatever electoral advantage it brings the Democratic Party, it is unhealthy for the nation to have a GOP that is close to a whites only party. Rather than having nightmares that the Republicans will find some success in moving towards racial diversity in their party, I sincerely hope they are successful, even while understanding it does not politically benefit my party.

    The RNC commissioned a report on this problem and the Young Republicans have also initiated some research. I wish them well in implementing successful programs that will result in recruiting some meaningful support from the African American, Hispanic and Asian Americans communities.

    The status quo of non-whites being almost absent from one of the two major parties in this country is simply not good for America.

    Again, no nightmares on my part because of a single state senator switching parties.

  • Ah but it isn’t merely one state senator switching Kurt, but rather a trend that is beginning throughout the South. The Democrat party relies upon lockstep voting by blacks and if that changes the party of abortion goes the way of the passenger pigeon. Considering that blacks have fared the worst of any group under Obama, except for unborn children, you may well live to see the days of monolithic black voting for your party to be one with the solid Democrat South or rock-ribbed Republican New England. Politics is always in flux and no element of the population can stand aside forever from that flux.

  • The unpatriotic aspects of the foundation of the democratic party are beginning to fail, crack, and dissolve. Watch how desperate they in the democratic party become over the next two years. The mid-term elections will be devastating to their elected ranks. The next presidential election in 2016 will be the end of this phase of the democratic party.

  • I may well live to see that day where the GOP is able to reach out beyond white voters. I hope I do, not because of an expectation that it means I will have longevity, but because I truly think the present situation of one of our major parties being so racially monolithic is bad for the nation. I encourage those of you who are Republicans to work effectively towards that noble goal. I wish you success.

    My state Republican central committee recently hired the first African American state Executive Director in the history of the Republican Party (and also the first openly gay ED). Maybe that is a hopeful sign. With Sen. Guillroy’s switch, now five southern states have at least a single Black Republican in either chamber of their state legislature.

  • The Democratic Party enslaved the black man to the plantation in the 19th century. Today the Democratic Party enslaves the black man to the teat of the public treasury while it murders unborn babies (a disproportionate number of whom are black) and sanctifies the filth of sodomy. Guess which party Kurt loves?

    The Republican Party isn’t the party of God, but we know who controls the Democratic Party. I do NOT say that all Democrats are bad, but inherent in the word democracy is the idea that majority rules regardless of moral law, for democracy in its purest and truest form is nothing other than two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner. Republicanism, however, in its truest form is respect for law and moral order, sadly virtues which the Democratic Party eschews and for which the Republican Party has demonstrated too much apathy and lethargy. But if limited to the choice of just those two, I’ll take the Republican Party any day of the week.

    PS, I am sick and tired of this racist nonsense that the Republican Party is the party of the white man. First of all, what’s wrong with being white? And secondly, if Kurt is so color blind, then why is this such a fixation for him and his like?

  • Paul —

    Given all of that, you would think the GOP would do better than the miserable job they are currently doing in winning minority support. Do you think the plan is continued repetition of what you just wrote? Or are there any serious ideas about doing something else?

  • Valid point, Kurt. Thankfully, we are not limited to just two parties. I will vote for the Constitution Party candidate henceforward unless something miraculous happens. Here is its 2012 platform:

    http://www.constitutionparty.com/OurPrinciples/2012Platform/tabid/127/Default.aspx

    Personally, unlike Don (may God bless his heart), I am a pessimist and think we have gone too far down the road of perdition in our embrace of the filth of sodomy and the bloody murder of the unborn. What God allowed Sennecharib to do to Israel and Nebuchadnezzar to Judah He will allow to happen to us. He deals with apostasy, heresy and rebellion first with a time for repentance and conversion, and when that fails, with swift and terrible justice. Lord have mercy.

    So I will vote my conscience instead of choosing between the lesser of two evils. May the good Lord forgive me if I err, and enable me to do right.

  • Paul,

    I have every confidence the Lord would quickly forgive you if you erred on these matters and find your sense of conscience admirable even if my conscience leads me elsewhere.

  • again this Jim Crow Democrat narrative is a total fallacy and the conservatives who buy into it are being completely intellectually dishonest

    those notorious Jim Crow Democrats Hubert Humphrey, JFK and LBJ

  • Rubbish JDP, as I am sure those Democrats Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, George Wallace, Orville Faubus, et al would readily agree. Your attempt to deny history is ridiculous and fatuous. Democrats have always been ready to use race-baiting as part of their election strategies. Only the colors have shifted, not the underlying principle that government may treat Americans differently on the basis of race.

  • give me a damn break. Even if Jim Crow and affirmative action are both wrong you’re really gonna try and tell me the intentions behind ’em are the same?

    does Barack Obama see himself as a Democrat in the lineage of the guys you listed or the guys I listed? Do you acknowledge that there was a split in the Democratic coalition during the ’60s that partially involved racial issues? Do Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms make the entire Republican Party anti-black in the way you’re trying to pretend that mid-century Southern Democratic governors represent the entire Democratic Party of the time?

  • The Democrat Party JDP has always viewed race as a factor to use to win elections and appeals to raw racism and racial paranoia are absolutely a part of the current Democrat strategy:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIOXfqvBEaE
    http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2013/06/politics_maybe.php

    That you continually seek to deny a self-evident reality does not alter the reality.

  • give me a damn break. Even if Jim Crow and affirmative action are both wrong you’re really gonna try and tell me the intentions behind ‘em are the same?

    To be precise, one regulates public space as a component of caste regulations. The other is a manifestation of the impulse of a certain sort of bourgeois to manufacture patron-client relationships. Both are disagreeable and have (with some qualifications) found their home in the Democratic Party throughout the post-bellum period.

    does Barack Obama see himself as a Democrat in the lineage of the guys you listed or the guys I listed?

    It does not matter how he sees himself. By default, he is a vehicle of the social services and educational apparat. He does not think outside that box.

    Do you acknowledge that there was a split in the Democratic coalition during the ’60s that partially involved racial issues?

    So?

    Do Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms make the entire Republican Party anti-black in the way you’re trying to pretend that mid-century Southern Democratic governors represent the entire Democratic Party of the time?

    Franklin Roosevelt received 13% of his vote totals from states where negro disfranchisement and segregation were fairly generalized (Thomas Dewey received 5% of his smaller vote totals from those states). There were only a scatter of Republican elected officials in any of those states at that time, and nearly all Southern Republican members of Congress were from a few Appalachian districts or from the very periphery of the South (Tulsa, Louisville). By contrast, you have two lapsed Democrats, one of whom was not a federal elected official at any time when racial caste regulations were a live issue. I am not seeing the ‘taint’ as being nearly of the same dimensions.

  • Art Deco I am not saying that you can’t point out past Democratic tolerance of the Southern wing as a key part of their history (though I am not sure what it has to do with now.) I am saying that this constant “Party of Lincoln, Party of George Wallace” drumbeat from Mr. McClarey when it comes to the Democrats and race is partisan hackery, which it is. You can’t take a party that used to include people on opposite sides of black civil rights, then went fully to the pro side, and define it entirely by the anti side it used to include. It doesn’t work and it rightfully doesn’t convince anyone (see: Rand Paul at Howard)

    and while Jim Crow and affirmative action might be equally “disagreeable” in the broad detached terms you’re speaking in it’s a real stretch to directly compare them. especially considering one was designed as an attempt to remedy the ill effects of the other and attitudes like it.

  • “Mr. McClarey when it comes to the Democrats and race is partisan hackery”

    Ludicrous. You sail completely by the use of the contemporary Democrat party of racial paranoia and racism to gain votes after I gave you an example from the lips of the Veep of the nation last year. I could have given you hundreds of other examples just from last year. Your stance on this matter is not merely intellectually dishonest but as foolish as Joe Biden and that is immense foolishness indeed.

  • You can’t take a party that used to include people on opposite sides of black civil rights, then went fully to the pro side, and define it entirely by the anti side it used to include. It doesn’t work and it rightfully doesn’t convince anyone (see: Rand Paul at Howard)

    and while Jim Crow and affirmative action might be equally “disagreeable” in the broad detached terms you’re speaking in it’s a real stretch to directly compare them. especially considering one was designed as an attempt to remedy the ill effects of the other and attitudes like it.

    Mr. JDP, I do not know where you live, but in the real fleshly country in which I live, “black civil rights” (in both the true sense of that term and the conventional sense of that term) have not been a subject of much controversy since about 1971. Within the Republican Party, there were some differences of opinion about specific policy measures but scarcely any defenses of Southern caste regulations.

    The ‘pro’ side to which you refer is not concerned with anyone’s civil rights or anything conventionally appended to the notion of civil rights in the two decades after the war. It is concerned with various sorts of political patronage and institutional arrangements. It is also concerned with political mobilization around identity categories.

    It is most foolish to speak of the excuses and lawyer’s briefs people offer at face value. There is a list of issues with regard to which liberal discourse extends very little beyond the boundaries of the republic of humbug. This is one such issue.

    John Rawls used the term ‘system of natural liberty’ to describe a state of equal liberty in which careers were open to talents. I doubt in this country you will get the bulk of the general public to adjudge as fair any system of social relations that is not a riff on that. Sad to say, elite cartels frustrating both the interests and sentiments of the broader public describes a great deal of how business is done in our world today. If you want something else, there is only one conduit toward that end. (Hint: it does not involve hitting the toggle switches next to the candidates marked ‘D’).

  • ‘ but in the real fleshly country in which I live, “black civil rights” (in both the true sense of that term and the conventional sense of that term) have not been a subject of much controversy since about 1971 – ‘

    Thank you. So well said, and applicable to this neck of the woods also. And, again, as follows:

    ‘ The ‘pro’ side to which you refer is not concerned with anyone’s civil rights – …
    It is concerned with various sorts of political patronage and institutional arrangements. It is also concerned with political mobilization around identity categories. ‘

    The party in power knows how to use people, most of us being inarticulate in the face of personal psychological ‘attacks’, to impose diversion and weakness in order to slither on.

  • “Mr. JDP, I do not know where you live, but in the real fleshly country in which I live, “black civil rights” (in both the true sense of that term and the conventional sense of that term) have not been a subject of much controversy since about 1971”

    I’m not the “historian” continually bringing up past Southern Democratic policies as though it’s at all relevant to today and acting like those guys were somehow flaming liberals

    Mr. McClarey — sorry I don’t reach for the smelling salts over certain charged election hyperbole, or think that Biden comment is really on the level of this Jim Crow narrative you’re constantly trying to wrap all Democrats in. but you can keep making your case why the Democratic Party is the most racisting racist party in the history of racism and that black people have just been mindtricked into voting for ’em if it makes you comfortable I guess.

  • “Mr. McClarey — sorry I don’t reach for the smelling salts over certain charged election hyperbole, or think that Biden comment is really on the level of this Jim Crow narrative you’re constantly trying to wrap all Democrats in. but you can keep making your case why the Democratic Party is the most racisting racist party in the history of racism and that black people have just been mindtricked into voting for ‘em if it makes you comfortable I guess.”

    Having a major political party in this nation JDP that routinely makes political hay by use of racial hatred and racial paranoia, and has done so for over one hundred and fifty years, makes me very uncomfortable. If it doesn’t make you uncomfortable I feel very sorry for you.

  • Biden hyperbole, populist conservative Democrats who were alienated from their party a long time ago: all part of the same tradition.

    like I said, hack. This is the conservative version of liberals arguing that because Republicans won over the South after 1964 their coalition is irredeemably racist. They’re simplified distorted versions of history used so hyperpartisans feel good about themselves

  • “They’re simplified distorted versions of history used so hyperpartisans feel good about themselves”

    No, it is simply an accurate description of Democrat tactics to profit from racial hatred. That you seek to deny this speaks volumes about your lack of insight and/or bad faith.

  • “He is going to let the big banks once again write their own rules, unchain Wall Street. He is going to put y’all back in chains.”

    sorry I don’t reach for the smelling salts over certain charged election hyperbole

    ‘Hyperbole’ is an odd way to put it. If it were anyone else, one would think this is an effort to move the frontier of what can be uttered in the public square. The lack of an internal editor in Biden’s head leaves one with the impression that the vice president’s lack of rhetorical skill (after 43 years in electoral politics) stands at the root of this, certainly none of that foreign phenomena others call “thought”. And how did we get a blathering azz-clown as the 1st in line to succeed to the presidency? Another ace decision by B.O…..

  • Still, Biden at his best was the day he confused himself with Neil Kinnock.

  • look guys, if you think the Biden thing is that awful that’s your prerogative, that’s not my issue here. My issue is Mr. McClarey continually taking the right wing (how it was referred to at the time — think Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace representing the right and left wings respectively in the ’48 election) of the Democratic Party as existed in the past and using it as a partisan point-scoring tool. It is lame and intellectually dishonest, and echoes tonedeaf conservative rhetoric that condescendingly acts as though the black vote for Obama/other Democratic politicians because of some elaborate mindtrick. Now if you want to argue that Democrats raise the specter of nefarious Republicans conspiring against racial minorities as electoral rhetoric that’s one thing (although if Republicans wanna push through voter ID rules they should effectively defend themselves and not act scandalized by criticism — of course people’re gonna bring up the racial angle,) just don’t be surprised if people aren’t impressed by attempts at Jim Crow analogies.

  • “My issue is Mr. McClarey continually taking the right wing (how it was referred to at the time — think Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace representing the right and left wings respectively in the ’48 election) of the Democratic Party as existed in the past and using it as a partisan point-scoring tool.”

    You simply refuse to acknowledge the actual point that I am making JDP which is the consistent theme of the Democrat party in using government power to discriminate among Americans based on race and the reliance of the Democrats on blatant racial appeals as a result of this policy. Trying to contend that Southern Democrat segregationists were “right” is amusing. Most of them were completely mainstream in their allegiance to the New Deal. Indeed, some of them, Huey Long for example, were to the left of FDR on economic matters. Strom Thurmond, who you cite, was an ardent New Dealer as Governor of South Carolina. The segregationists as a group were fairly typical Democrats, and in their use of racial appeals for political purposes they were part of a long and dishonorable Democrat tradition that continues to this day.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/examiner-editorial-democratic-strategy-keep-playing-the-race-card/article/610841

  • think Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace representing the right and left wings respectively in the ’48 election) of the Democratic Party as existed in the past and using it as a partisan point-scoring tool. It is lame and intellectually dishonest,

    1. I am pleased to here you do not like ‘partisan point-scoring’. That being the case, I will assume you just cannot abide the humbug peddled (by, among others, Paul Krugman) about Richard Nixon having built a Republican Party from race baiting. (Samples of his advertising here: http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1968)

    and echoes tonedeaf conservative rhetoric that condescendingly acts as though the black vote for Obama/other Democratic politicians because of some elaborate mindtrick.

    Thomas Frank flacks for the other team, JDP (http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372029336&sr=1-1&keywords=whats+the+matter+with+kansas)

    That aside, there is such a thing as casting a ballot as a way of affirming an affiliation. You can talk to pols in Ulster if you want a precis of how that works in a multi-party system. You can look at the Bronx for an example of what happens in a two party system (or “two” party system).

    Now if you want to argue that Democrats raise the specter of nefarious Republicans conspiring against racial minorities as electoral rhetoric that’s one thing (although if Republicans wanna push through voter ID rules they should effectively defend themselves and not act scandalized by criticism — of course people’re gonna bring up the racial angle,) just don’t be surprised if people aren’t impressed by attempts at Jim Crow analogies.

    The law says when you cast a ballot, you show a picture ID first, as you do for the most banal transactions. And its your contention that there is a segment of the adult population too disengaged to have a picture ID but part of the 40% or so that are civically inclined enough to cast a ballot. Yeah, and Soupy Sales made $80,000 from this maneuver.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-OGy3Kh7yM&list=PLB468BE316B343514

    And, its only natural that Democratic pols would respond to these legislative efforts with a blizzard of slander. Thank God they aren’t lame and intellecutally dishonest.

  • “Trying to contend that Southern Democrat segregationists were “right” is amusing”

    the concept of racial conservatism/liberalism never existed? There are other forms of rightism besides Catholic conservatism. And again with this New Deal stuff — I’m not saying you can neatly lump these guys into a conservative across-the-board category. I’m saying that they were viewed as right-wing in certain ways and were never thought of as the liberal wing. Which they weren’t. You didn’t have to be a flaming pinko to support New Deal programs.

    Art Deco I know this psychoanalysis of Republican voters from guys like Krugman is very popular with liberals and I reject it. “Southern strategy won all modern Republican presidential victories” and “the modern Democratic Party is descended from Bull Connor” are flipsides of the same partisan coin, unless you view race in a completely abstract way where affirmative action and Jim Crow are the same thing, which still doesn’t change the fact that one is literally the _opposite_ of the other and intended as a corrective whether it’s wrong or not. you are right about bloc voting (with Obama could compare it to people voting for Kennedy out of Catholic pride, pretty natural) but absolving the GOP of any responsibility for why they don’t get the black vote, and treating ’em all as people’ve who’ve been duped, is pretty convenient.

  • I mean you guys are trying to take this more colorblind-than-thou stance and totally ignore the divergent histories of white and black people in this country so you can make white supremacy/having a more minority-based coalition into the same thing. do you really not get why people won’t accept this logic, regardless of their opinions on affirmative action/race-baiting in politics

  • “I’m saying that they were viewed as right-wing in certain ways and were never thought of as the liberal wing.”

    Harry Truman routinely condemned Republicans as fascists, a term he never applied to his Democrat supporters in Dixie. The economic issues tended to be the defining left/right divide of the time period considered, with cultural issues virtually non-existent. Another dividing line was between those who understood the menace posed by Communism and those who did not. The civil rights issue that began dividing the Democrat party beginning in 1948, Republicans having overwhelmingly supported civil rights for blacks, was not understood as a left/right issue within the party but rather a north/south divide. The fact that Senator Estes Kefauver, an opponent of integration, could be Stevenson’s veep candidate in 1956, and Senator John Sparkman of Alabama, an outright segregationist, Stevenson’s veep in 1952, demonstrates that this divide looms larger in retrospect than it did at the time, Sparkman and Kefauver otherwise being fairly standard liberals and therefore acceptable on a Democrat national ticket, their racism notwithstanding.

  • “Harry Truman routinely condemned Republicans as fascists, a term he never applied to his Democrat supporters in Dixie”

    more relevant, his support of military integration also provoked a breakaway Dixiecrat ticket. I dunno what point you’re trying to make here…politicians engage in heated political rhetoric?

    “The economic issues tended to be the defining left/right divide of the time period considered, with cultural issues virtually non-existent”

    This doesn’t change the fact that cultural issues are seen as having a left and right wing too, and that included racial issues. This doesn’t mean that conservatives couldn’t support black civil rights of course, just that the movement was not a “right-wing” one. National Review was critical of it and MLK, Barry Goldwater thought the Civil RIghts Act was unconstitutional, can go on. Of course it’s not like people are criticism-proof, but the point is that it was a liberal movement, even if it held support from non-liberals. Similar to how the pro-life movement is inherently a conservative one even if it attracts support from select liberals.

    “Another dividing line was between those who understood the menace posed by Communism and those who did not”

    so are you trying to say Truman was a hardcore liberal or a hardcore conservative? Or both depending on the topic? If it’s the latter I don’t disagree

    “The civil rights issue that began dividing the Democrat party beginning in 1948, Republicans having overwhelmingly supported civil rights for blacks”

    it split the party, the Northern liberal wing won out, Southern states stopped voting lockstep for Democrats in presidential elections. AKA the exact point I’ve been making.

    I feel like you know this is dishonest as anything except simplifying history for partisan purposes. You know parties are not static entities. The only way bringing it up in today’s context is if you really wanna make the dubious case that affirmative action and certain election-year rhetoric are terrible awful no-good crimes on par with Jim Crow, which, good luck with that

  • “I dunno what point you’re trying to make here…politicians engage in heated political rhetoric?”

    Highlighting your ignorance of the left-right divisions of the time to underline your mischaracterization of segregationists as in any sense “right” which betrays a complete, probably deliberate, misstatement by you of just how mainstream they were as far as the Democrat party was concerned.

    “Of course it’s not like people are criticism-proof, but the point is that it was a liberal movement, even if it held support from non-liberals.”

    Republicans of all types had been calling for Civil Rights protection for blacks since the Civil War. Civil Rights was much more of a partisan issue between the Republicans and the Democrats than a left-right issue. The atrocious Civil Rights record of Woodrow Wilson, clearly a man of the left, demonstrates this. You really need to master the history in this area much better than you have, unless you are being deliberately obtuse.

    “so are you trying to say Truman was a hardcore liberal or a hardcore conservative? Or both depending on the topic? If it’s the latter I don’t disagree”

    Truman in his time was considered a hard core New Deal liberal. He is now mistakenly considered to have conservative leanings by some purely due to the anti-anti-Communism that became dominant in the Democrat party in the late Sixties and Seventies. Truman looks conservative when compared to a George McGovern which says nothing about left-right splits in Truman’s day.

    “split the party, the Northern liberal wing won out, Southern states stopped voting lockstep for Democrats in presidential elections. AKA the exact point I’ve been making.”

    Which is a liberal fable. It didn’t happen that way. The first breach in the solid South was by Eisenhower who ran on a platform of vigorous support for Civil Rights for blacks. Segregationists retained complete control of the Democrat parties in the South and enjoyed electoral success throughout the period in question. The South changing to Republican had to do with the rise of the cultural issues, an influx of northern Republicans following wide spread use of air conditioning and the rapid economic development of the South, and the anti-military hysteria and isolationism that seized control of the Democrats in the wake of Vietnam. That you are peddling this myth illustrates either bad faith or a true ignorance of the subject.

    “I feel like you know this is dishonest as anything except simplifying history for partisan purposes.”
    No JDP, I spend my time correcting your bad history because bad history offends me. I also spend my time doing it because I had hoped you were simply ignorant rather than acting in bad faith. I am leaning to bad faith as your motivation now. I am placing you on moderation as a result.

  • Southern strategy won all modern Republican presidential victories” and “the modern Democratic Party is descended from Bull Connor” are flipsides of the same partisan coin, unless you view race in a completely abstract way where affirmative action and Jim Crow are the same thing, which still doesn’t change the fact that one is literally the _opposite_ of the other and intended as a corrective whether it’s wrong or not. you are right about bloc voting (with Obama could compare it to people voting for Kennedy out of Catholic pride, pretty natural)

    The blatherskite about the ‘Southern Strategy’ is a political fiction. It is propagated by people (Krugman, Thomas Sieger Derr) who do not have too many excuses – they lived through the period, they can certainly consult accounts of the inner-workings of Nixon’s ad campaigns (e.g. Joe McGinnis’ The Selling of the President, 1968, and video clips of Nixon ads are readily available. It is very pleasing nonsense for Democratic partisans and they are not going to give it up. Bull Connor actually was a registered Democrat and people who thought as he did were a big chunk of the Democratic Party’s base. No fiction there. (And this sort of social thought was not incidental to the dynamics of Southern politics).

    The notion that “Jim Crow” and “affirmative action” are “exactly the opposite of each other” is another political fiction – this time yours. “Affirmative action” has several dimensions, but among them are two: political mobilization making use of a revanchist strain in the culture of a population subset and the distribution of patronage to ethnic clientele. The former could be seen in post-bellum Southern politics and the latter in urban politics in the north after 1850. The perps in both cases were primarily the pols with the big “D” after their names. Plus ca change….

    but absolving the GOP of any responsibility for why they don’t get the black vote, and treating ‘em all as people’ve who’ve been duped, is pretty convenient.

    Ecologists have worked within a notion of ‘ecosystem succession’ which incorporates fairly rapid changes in the portfolio of flora and fauna to be found in a given area. You can see this in social life as well, for example in the characteristics of urban neighborhoods. With regard to the black political culture and society, you see two successions, one happening between about 1929 and 1934 and one running from 1956 to 1964. You can argue that the response of Republican politicians to what was going on around them was suboptimal, but keep in mind it was a response; there was not and is not much you can do to direct events in certain circumstances. I doubt you are going to see a graduated erosion of the Democratic Party’s position with the black populations; there will be a social crisis and then a flip to a new ecosystem, time and axes of conflict unknowable. Right now, blacks vote Democratic and Ulster protestants vote Unionist. This is not any ‘fault’ of the political opposition; it is just the society and culture in which we live.

    Votes are votes and no one vote counts more than any other, no matter how kew-el partisan Democrats fancy it is to have black votes and not vulgar evangelical votes.

  • so are you trying to say Truman was a hardcore liberal or a hardcore conservative? Or both depending on the topic? If it’s the latter I don’t disagree

    The Democratic Party had what you might call a ‘popular front’ wing typified by Henry Wallace, Glen Taylor, and Robert Kenney. It imploded fairly rapidly between 1944 and 1950; salient events were the embarrassment of the Wallace campaign in 1948 and the expulsion of a dozen pinko unions from the Congress of Industrial Organizations in 1949. The Republicans had an isolationist wing with two components: agrarian populists like William Langer and old whigs like Robert Taft. This was also rapidly imploding during the post-war period and were no more than about a quarter of the Congressional Republican caucus by 1949; Taft died in 1953 the residuum was ejected from Congress in the 1958 elections.

  • it split the party, the Northern liberal wing won out, Southern states stopped voting lockstep for Democrats in presidential elections. AKA the exact point I’ve been making.

    Um, no. The dissipation of the Democratic Party’s advantage in the Southern United States was a gradual one taking place over more than four decades. As late as 1976, Alabama had not one Republican in the lower house of its legislature.

Meanwhile, Back at the States

Monday, February 4, AD 2013

 

 

 

It is an odd thing about the United States that the activities of the Federal government tends to dominate news coverage, while the activities of the States get short shrift.  I say this is odd, because State government still tends to impact the lives of most Americans far more than the Federal government.  This can give us a rather distorted view of what is going on in the country.  Conn Carroll in an editorial in the Washington Examiner, reports on a largely unknown story as far as most of the national media is concerned:

 

The United States faces a crisis in our political system,” the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne wrote last December, “because the Republican Party is no longer a normal, governing party.”

Dionne is half-right. The United States does face a crisis in our political system. Last week, Pew released a new study showing that trust in the federal government remains near all-time lows. Worse, for the first time ever, Pew found that a majority of Americans believe the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms.

And it is not just Republicans who now see the federal government as a threat. A full 55 percent of independents agree with them, up from just 50 percent only two years ago.

But the story is completely different at the state and local level. According to a September 2012 Gallup poll, a full 65 percent of Americans trust their state government — a 14-point jump in confidence from 2009.

Why is Americans’ confidence in state and local government surging while their frustration and fear of the federal government are growing? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Republicans govern at the state level.

Republicans currently occupy the governor’s mansions in 30 states, representing 58 percent of the U.S. population. They control both the governorship and legislature in 25 states, representing 52 percent of all Americans. Democrats enjoy such control of only 14 states, representing just 33 percent of the country.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Meanwhile, Back at the States

  • 1. With a few exceptions, state governments are in passable fiscal condition. Ditto localities.

    2. Conrad Black recently offered the opinion that the political class had in the last 20 years flubbed every notable issue bar welfare reform.

    a. Welfare reform was road tested by state governments, most notably and successfully Wisconsin’s.

    b. One very notable success in recent decades has been in the control of crime. Eighty-nine percent of the manpower devoted to police and prisons is located in state and local government and federal funding of local police, state police, and state prison systems is sufficiently circumscribed that Congress and the Department of Justice have not been able to leverage it to disrupt the delivery of services in the manner in which they have for primary and secondary schooling.

    c. Lots of people have social contact with school district employees. The corps I am acquainted with offer this assessment of No-Child-Left-Behind: it induces reams of paperwork. Full stop.

  • Interesting article. If you don’t mind me getting hung up on one small point, do you really think that state governments have a greater impact in most of our lives? National defense, tax rates, inflation and interest rates, and ultimately legal interpretations are all in the hands of the federal government, and those are just some of the biggies. Trade policy is another one whose effects are ubiquitous, although not obvious.

  • If the Catholic schools at the elementary and secondary levels would teach about Rerum Novarum and the principle of subsidiarity there might be a lot more citizens out there who understand why the Federal government can’t do what it claims to do effectively and efficiently. Virtually every Catholic I know thinks the Federal government is more able to solve all of our problems.

  • “do you really think that state governments have a greater impact in most of our lives?”

    Yes I do. Property taxes, state income tax, local taxes, sales tax, zoning laws, the schools, laws impacting businesses, laws governing divorce, child support, child custody, adoption, state courts, traffic laws, criminal statutes and the list could go at considerable length. If we have a war with a draft the Federal government looms pretty large, but absent that, even with the radical expansion of the Federal government since the New Deal, I think for most people the State government has a much bigger impact on their day to day lives

Have I Got a Party For Them!

Wednesday, November 14, AD 2012

 

 

After every major Republican defeat the party plays a game of lifeboat which boils down to:  “If we just dump over those rascals I have never agreed with, everything would be hunky dory.”  After a few months of this, the party settles down, learns from its defeats, the Democrats fall on their face, and the party comes roaring back.  In the present period of Republican angst, some commentators have been calling for the social conservatives to go into the deep blue political void.  Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal is typical.

Fellow conservatives, please stop obsessing about what other adults might be doing in their bedrooms, so long as it’s lawful and consensual and doesn’t impinge in some obvious way on you. This obsession is socially uncouth, politically counterproductive and, too often, unwittingly revealing.

Also, if gay people wish to lead conventionally bourgeois lives by getting married, that may be lunacy on their part but it’s a credit to our values. Channeling passions that cannot be repressed toward socially productive ends is the genius of the American way. The alternative is the tapped foot and the wide stance.

Also, please tone down the abortion extremism. Supporting so-called partial-birth abortions, as too many liberals do, is abortion extremism. But so is opposing abortion in cases of rape and incest, to say nothing of the life of the mother. Democrats did better with a president who wanted abortion to be “safe, legal and rare”; Republicans would have done better by adopting former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels’s call for a “truce” on social issues.

I always find the sheer political fantasy land of such proposals amusing.  Social conservatives are  the core of the Republican party.  No one can be involved with the Republican party for long without noticing that most of the volunteers in Republican campaigns are social conservatives.  They are the ones who do the door to door canvassing, put up yard signs, man the phones, etc.  Without them any Republican campaign would be a mere shell.  Yes, it would be a masterstroke for Republicans to alienate their most devoted supporters.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Have I Got a Party For Them!

  • I agree with Don and would note that the Libertarian platform is perfectly fine with polygamy, as will be the Democratic platform eventually.

  • the party plays a game of lifeboat which boils down to: “If we just dump over those rascals I have never agreed with, everything would be hunky dory.

    Not ‘the party’, but a collection of professional word merchants like David Frum.

  • Democrats did better with a president who wanted abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare”.

    That was Bill Clinton’s era. I haven’t heard the current president say “rare” once. The kind of pro-abortion extremism that the Journal correctly derides is sitting in the White House. It’s perfectly legitimate, even by the WSJ article’s standards, to raise the abortion issue in the face of extremism. I agree with Don about the rest, too, but I just had to call out that “safe, legal, and rare” falsehood.

  • Listening to the radio right now I hear Penn Jillette, the comedian/comic, claiming to be a libertarian. He says that he is “as far right as you can go on economics and as far left as you can go on sex.” First of all, note the obsessive linking of all social issues with “sex.” More importantly, it continues to astound me that so-called small government types miss the connection between culture and economics. The massive interventionist state has been created by (and also exacerbates) the breakdown of the family and reliance on the government as a last refuge of charity. Libertarians simply cannot grasp this concept, thus highlighting the problem of viewing liberty as an end rather the means to an end.

  • The massive interventionist state has been created by (and also exacerbates) the breakdown of the family and reliance on the government as a last refuge of charity. Libertarians simply cannot grasp this concept, thus highlighting the problem of viewing liberty as an end rather the means to an end.

    In this country, the elaboration on conventional common provision which began around about 1933 antedated the breakdown in social architecture by more than three decades. The initial experiments toward this end in Hohenzollern Germany were underway five decades earlier.

    Libertarians are commonly discussing a hypothetical society, not the actual world of 1928, and are often in a state in life where the observation that all of us come into this world in a dependent position and most of us leave in the same circumstance is not exactly palpable. Rich Leonardi once said that his departure from the libertarian fold began when he realized that the luminaries thereof were disproportionately drawn from the childless.

    One should draw a distinction between a state which allocates capital beyond the conventional boundaries of common property and public works (through mercantilist measures and economic planning) and a state which re-distributes income. The former is attempting to influence economic decision making at every stage; the latter is not. Friedrich v. Hayek’s brief concerned planning; social insurance was not of much concern to him.

  • The left understands the importance of the social issues, which is why their push for abortion, same sex “marriage”, etc. has always been symbiotic with their push for the welfare nanny state. Obamacare proves that fact in spades.

    For Mitch Daniels of all people to call for a truce on social issues is bizarre in thta he distances himself from his own record as Governor of Indiana in doing so. His record on social issues there was sterling.

  • What’s ironic is that what likely depressed turnout for Romney in places like Ohio is the exact OPPOSITE of what the low-tax liberals at the WSJ would ever admit — namely, this caricature of him as Gordon Gekko.

    while the economic liberal/socially conservative dichotomy when it comes to working-class voters is probably an oversimplification, I seriously doubt all of Obama’s support in the Midwest came from people who are gungho about his cultural liberalism.

  • Mike Petrik wrote, “I agree with Don and would note that the Libertarian platform is perfectly fine with polygamy, as will be the Democratic platform eventually.”

    When will both parties then support leagilized pedophilia and beastiality? After all, if sex between two men or between two women is OK, then why not sex between man and boy, or sex between man and animal? Let me guess: the only behavior the left is outrages at is when a priest is accused, falsely or otherwise, of any sex act. But if a liberal does the exact same act, then it’s OK. In fact, it’s to be praised. Romans 1:32 says that such people deserve to die. Not my words – St. Paul’s and hee was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Just to be clear, however: anyone who sins deserves to die. We have all sinned. That’s why Christ died on a Cross.

  • Most of the sane libertarians I know are aware that the Libertarian party can’t go anywhere; that’s why they want to take over the Republican party.

    This phenomia is familiar to anyone who has lived near a left wing disaster area, and had floods of people moving out of that area…and making their new home make the same stupid mistakes.

  • The Republicans allowed themselves to be painted as a party of plutocrats, even though their tradition included famous Republicans such as the trust-busting TR who had warned about the concentration of capital in a few hands. They could have handily won the battleground states with swing votes from the Reagan Democrats alone without compromising on any of their core issues. They could not bring out the Evangelicals either which despite Rev Billy Graham’s last minute trick on the Mormon issue, left many unconvinced. Obama was in tears when congratulating his campaign workers, quite realising that they had pulled off an unexpected victory on the back of an ill thought Republican campaign.

Historical Ignorance Thy Name is Spielberg

Wednesday, October 10, AD 2012

 

 

As he unveiled his Lincoln biopic that is being released next month, director Steven Spielberg proclaimed that he did not want the film to be a political football and then promptly made it into one with this remark:

“Because it’s kind of confusing. The parties traded political places over the last 150 years. That in itself is a great story, how the Republican Party went from a progressive party in 1865, and how the Democrats were represented in the picture, to the way it’s just the opposite today. But that’s a whole other story.”

This would be funny if the historical ignorance were not so vast.  The Republican party, from its inception, has held that the government may not discriminate on the basis of race.

From the 1856 Republican platform, the first Republican platform:

Resolved: That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence, and embodied in the Federal Constitution are essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions, and that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the States, and the union of the States, must and shall be preserved.

Resolved: That, with our Republican fathers, we hold it to be a self-evident truth, that all men are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior design of our Federal Government were to secure these rights to all persons under its exclusive jurisdiction; that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the Territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein. That we deny the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislation, of any individual, or association of individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be maintained.

Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism — Polygamy, and Slavery.

The Republican party has been true to this position throughout its history.  From the Republican platform of 1932:

The Negro

For seventy years the Republican Party has been the friend of the American Negro. Vindication of the rights of the Negro citizen to enjoy the full benefits of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is traditional in the Republican Party, and our party stands pledged to maintain equal opportunity and rights for Negro citizens. We do not propose to depart from that tradition nor to alter the spirit or letter of that pledge.

From the 1944 Republican platform:

Racial and Religious Intolerance

We unreservedly condemn the injection into American life of appeals to racial or religious prejudice.

We pledge an immediate Congressional inquiry to ascertain the extent to which mistreatment, segregation and discrimination against Negroes who are in our armed forces are impairing morale and efficiency, and the adoption of corrective legislation.

We pledge the establishment by Federal legislation of a permanent Fair Employment Practice Commission.

Anti-Poll Tax

The payment of any poll tax should not be a condition of voting in Federal elections and we favor immediate submission of a Constitutional amendment for its abolition.

Anti-Lynching

We favor legislation against lynching and pledge our sincere efforts in behalf of its early enactment.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Historical Ignorance Thy Name is Spielberg

  • 160 years ago the majority of Democrats considered an entire class of people to be sub-human and undeserving of basic civil rights. Some Democrats didn’t consider themselves to be pro-slavery per se, but certainly didn’t want government interfering with that choice. The Republicans, meanwhile, fought to defend the dignity of all humans.

    Doesn’t sound like the parties have switched to me.

  • What I find so painful with lefties like Spielberg and Hanks is that they do such good work with WWII miniserieses like Band of Brothers and The Pacific. For Spielberg to say stuff like this and Hanks, on the occasion of his endorsement of Obama in 2008, prattle on about how blacks were once defined as 3/5 of a person.

    Now this betrays not only historical ignorance but downright stupidity. Since I will assume that readers will know what the 3/5 compromise was all about (those who don’t can look it up on their own), I won’t explain it here. But think about it: if you wanted to degrade someone you would call 3/5 of a person. You would say something more demeaning. One could rightly assert that blacks were treated far worse that 3/5 of a person for almost 200 years of our history. How the obvious escapes those who think they are smarter than the rest of us will never cease to amaze me.

  • The problem has been the lassitude of Republicans and conservatives to fight against the wholesale deception and rewriting of the historical record by the Left. The Left has always been practiced in photo “retouching” but conservatives until very recently couldn’t be bothered to produce the original photo. Woodrow Wilson was a horrible racist and Harding and Coolidge tried to ameliorate the damage. But Wilson is praised and Harding and Coolidge ridiculed. Repubs still don’t mention this. Look at the silly lie that the Bush tax cuts and Iraq war caused the financial panic. Did Bush, the Repubs or Romney ever come out with a detailed rebuttal over the past 4 years? The public views silence as consent.

  • i find it worthless to compare parties from radically different eras, whether in Spielberg’s simplistic view or the whole “Democrats used to have a Dixiecrat wing” deal. well OK “worthless” might be strong but when coalitions and ideologies realign it’s not always easy to draw a straight line in history.

    i mean a bunch the South switched its vote on the national level to the GOP in the ’60s. some people probably had certain prejudices. i think that can be acknowledged while pointing out that a) having certain prejudices, mild or not, does not necessarily discredit someone’s views on absolutely everything and b) the “GOP won because of the Southern strategy” is an extremely reductionist view that liberals use to try to cast GOP victories as illegitimate. Southern Democrats were not cultural liberals so it is not surprising that they would not find a McGovernized national Democratic Party appealing.

  • “Democrats used to have a Dixiecrat wing” deal”

    The problem with the Democrats is throughout the history of their party they have been comfortable using the power of the State to discriminate among Americans on the basis of race. In regard to the South converting to Republicanism it had virtually nothing to do with race and much to do with the national Democrat party hurtling to the Left following the capture of the party by the McGovern faction in 1972. Jimmy Carter in 1976 helped delay this process, but did not stop it as he was also a man of the Left in a Southern wrapping.

  • “160 years ago the majority of Democrats considered an entire class of people to be sub-human and undeserving of basic civil rights. Some Democrats didn’t consider themselves to be pro-slavery per se, but certainly didn’t want government interfering with that choice. The Republicans, meanwhile, fought to defend the dignity of all humans.

    Doesn’t sound like the parties have switched to me.”

    True Paul. One can imagine a modern day Democrat convention booing these sentiments because of their obvious applicability to the abortion debate and because of their reference to God:

    “These communities, by their representatives in old Independence Hall, said to the whole world of men: “We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” This was their majestic interpretation of the economy of the Universe. This was their lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of the Creator to His creatures. [Applause.] Yes, gentlemen, to all His creatures, to the whole great family of man. In their enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the Divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on, and degraded, and imbruted by its fellows.”

    That is, until they realized that the speaker was quoting Abraham Lincoln:

    http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=lincoln;cc=lincoln;type=simple;rgn=div1;q1=Speech%20at%20Lewistown;view=text;subview=detail;sort=occur;idno=lincoln2;node=lincoln2%3A567

  • Don, I just wanted to let you know that since finding TAC, and reading your homages and references to Mr. Lincoln, I have downloaded the entire library of Lincoln’s writings and speeches to my Kindle, and am pursuing a concentrated effort to add their essences to my intellectual aresenal. This will undoubtedly necessitate some mental remodeling, if not outright expansion if such is possible, as the volume is ponderous. Nor are they ‘quick reads;’ indeed, the tankard is large, but each sip is so rich and delectable that it will be a very long time before I can consider a refill.

    Coupled with the Papal encyclicals (so far) Rerum Novarum, Humanae Vitae and Caritas in Veritate I am finding an amazing recharging of the basic, commonsense tenets that life has beaten out of me over the past few decades. It’s like returning home in a way that might have made Thomas Wolfe rethink a few things.

    The wonderful dichotomy of simplicity and elegance contained in the wisdom of these works has also brought home the truly loathsome nature of the sin of selfishness; I would beat the drum and blare the trumpet to call attention, but for how far I have yet to go before I can even begin to think myself a worthy example. Perhaps someday.

    Thank you for the tremendous efforts. You truly are a City on a Hill.

  • “have downloaded the entire library of Lincoln’s writings and speeches to my Kindle”

    Enjoy WK. Mr. Lincoln is a master stylist and could pack more thought in fewer words than any other writer of the English tongue.

    “Thank you for the tremendous efforts. You truly are a City on a Hill.”

    I would blush WK if it were still possible for me to do so after three decades at the bar! 🙂

  • “The problem with the Democrats is throughout the history of their party they have been comfortable using the power of the State to discriminate among Americans on the basis of race.”

    yes but, for example, if the George Wallace of 1968 was here today he wouldn’t be for affirmative action.

    calling affirmative action racist, regardless of its truth, isn’t going to gain a lot of traction with people who aren’t already against it IMO. what’s needed is to point out that it perpetuates this idea that black people cannot succeed without it/that all their current problems can be blamed on white racism, it promotes skepticism even for blacks who didn’t get a boost from it, and it isn’t just — also that it screws over working-class whites who aren’t “privileged” in any sense of the term.

    Jim Webb i thought wrote a good piece against it a while back, obviously benefiting from some leeway since he’s a Democrat

  • “calling affirmative action racist, regardless of its truth,”

    Always best to stick with the truth in determining government policy. The racial spoils system celebrated by the Democrats has had an evil impact on the nation as a whole, and, in particular, in regard to the supposed beneficiaries.

    “yes but, for example, if the George Wallace of 1968 was here today he wouldn’t be for affirmative action.”

    The Wallace of 1968 was for affirmative action, for whites. By the end of his life he was still embracing affirmative action with the colors shifted.

    “Jim Webb”

    I can think of few political positions that Jim Webb hasn’t betrayed, sometimes more than once.

  • “Enjoy WK. Mr. Lincoln is a master stylist and could pack more thought in fewer words than any other writer of the English tongue.”

    Reagan was much this way as well. If you get the book “Reagan in His Own Hand”, you will see, especailly in the radio spots he did from about 1976 to when he stsrted gearing up for the 1980 run, he could pack more information in a few minute sound bite than anybody I ever knew. This affrims my belief that the most profound truths are elementary and take few words to demonstrate and the most pernicious errors take few words to expose. Unfortunately, few understand that.

  • Pingback: Review of the Lincoln Trailer | The American Catholic

Compare and Contrast, or Reason Number One Why I Am A Republican

Tuesday, September 4, AD 2012

 

 

The Democrat platform on abortion:

The President and the Democratic Party believe that women have a right to control their reproductive choices. Democrats support access to affordable family planning services, and President Obama and Democrats will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers. The Affordable Care Act ensures that women have access to contraception in their health insurance plans, and the President has respected the principle of religious liberty. Democrats support evidence-based and age-appropriate sex education.

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and her clergy; there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way. We also recognize that health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. We strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child by providing affordable health care and ensuring the availability of and access to programs that help women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including caring adoption programs.

President Obama and the Democratic Party are committed to supporting family planning around the globe to help women care for their families, support their communities, and lead their countries to be healthier and more productive. That’s why, in his first month in office, President Obama overturned the “global gag rule,” a ban on federal funds to foreign family planning organizations that provided information about, counseling on, or offered abortions. And that is why the administration has supported lifesaving family planning health information and services.

The Republican party platform on abortion:

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Compare and Contrast, or Reason Number One Why I Am A Republican

  • The choice could not be more stark. i am continually stunned that American Catholics could support such an organisation – and of course, in other countries as well; but it seems to be more pronounced in the US.
    Surely, Don, that seal for the Democrats has been doctored -“mors vincet omnia” ?

  • Death conquers all. I am continually stunned also Don that any Catholic could support the Democrats but many do. We might have one or two show up in the comboxes to argue that it is really the Democrats who are pro-life! The human capacity for believing what we want to believe, evidence be hanged, is infinite.

  • But Don, of course death doesn’t conquer all – Jesus’ victory over death tells us so. 🙂

  • I think the Democrat Party, leaving aside individual Democrats, and Jesus aren’t on speaking terms right now!

    The Democrats have removed any reference to God in their platform. They do mention the Southside Messiah over one hundred times.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/democrats-remove-god-from-dnc-platform-insert-obama-s-name-over-100-times

  • Ha!

    It just proves once again that men who don’t worship God will worship something, or someone else instead.

  • since I have many family members who are democrats, I find reason to pray very hard for them..It seems that there is nothing else left to do…reason does not work!

  • Pingback: We Belong to the Government | The American Catholic
  • What I find interesting is that the Democratic platform completely dances around the issue of human life. At no point do they come out and say “We don’t believe an unborn child is a human person.” nor do they say “We believe an unborn child is a human person, but we should kill them if they are inconvenient.” They leave that question alone, and for very good reason. If they answer that it is not a human person, then they must defeat the mountain of scientific and medical evidence that says otherwise, not to mention the philosophical questions. If they answer that it is a human person, then they must admit that they are murderers. Either way, they look bad, so they pull a Wizard of Oz: “Pay no attention to the baby behind the belly button, oops, I mean the man behind the curtain.” They avoid any language which might suggest that is an issue. They have to do that, because they have no good response.

  • Don stated it best. “The choice could not be more stark.” I’m always dumbfounded by people who say there is no difference between the parties.

    I wish the Democrats would move in the pro-life direction. I have a sort of moderate, non-political friend who always says “I have high hopes for the Democratic Party,” meaning he thinks that at some point they’ll get over the far leftist infection and return to what they were like in the early part of last century. But he feels that way because he doesn’t follow politics; there is no evidence that they are doing anything of the sort. On the contrary, national Dem candidates are getting progressively worse on the issue.

    But if they did move toward Life it would push the Republicans in a pro-life direction. The country as a whole has been moving in that direction as the horror stories about the evil of abortion pile up in the hearts and minds of Americans. The people know it’s wrong. But the Dems rely on the monetary proceeds from it. It will take a miracle for them to shake that monkey off.

  • To clarify, when I said “.., would move Republicans in a pro-life direction” I meant in an even more pro-life direction and would give them more boldness and bipartisan clout to the movement rather than just the same old expectation of being obstructed on every pro-life initiative.

  • @Pauli, I’m sure your friend is a lovely person, but you might consider getting him a history book. The Democrat party wasn’t a very kind and gentle group of folks in the early 20th century.

    And with that in mind, I have to say how impressive (and depressing) it is that the Democrat party seems to have set out in the last quarter century to ignore their reprehensible past and proclaim themselves the party of civil rights and so many people actually buy it. Slavery, segregation, the KKK, Jim Crow, why do I feel like I’m the only one left who remembers those were all pushed by the Democrats? And now they’ve got the honor of being the party of envy and death. Lovely folks, they are.

  • the “Democrats are the party of slavery and Jim Crow” is silly because it ignores that politics used to be much more coalitional. before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 where Goldwater opposed it on constitutional grounds, civil rights were basically bipartisan, it’s just that the Democrats tolerated Southern segregationists to hold electoral votes in the South from people who were nothing like future McGovern Democrats on other issues. once that coalition broke those people gravitated toward the GOP in national elections because they didn’t have anything in common with the increasingly left-wing nature of the Democratic Party.

    note that this isn’t a “GOP won the South because of racism” argument. Nixon did try to get votes from Wallace people but you could argue they regardless of segregationist views they might’ve held in the past, they were more in tune with the GOP on other issues anyway.

  • i basically view the Dixiecrats:today’s Democrats analogy as flawed in the same way as if you tried to compare Rockefeller Republicans to today’s Republicans. demographics and ideology have shifted over time.

    if anything is wrong with the modern Democratic Party on the race issue it’s that they’re too ANTI-racist. by which i don’t mean that racism is acceptable, but that it has consumed them to the point where they’re blissfully ignorant of any potential cultural problems that could arise from unchecked immigration, and they buy into all the multicultural slush.

  • “i am continually stunned that American Catholics could support such an organisation”

    As Lord Macauley observed, “We know through what strange loopholes the human mind contrives to escape, when it wishes to avoid a disagreeable inference from an admitted proposition. We know how long the Jansenists contrived to believe the Pope infallible in matters of doctrine, and at the same time to believe doctrines which he pronounced to be heretical.”

  • “if anything is wrong with the modern Democratic Party on the race issue it’s that they’re too ANTI-racist. ”

    If twere only true! Actually the Democrat Party has always been fine with government discriminating against people based on their race. The colors have shifted over time, but the principle has remained the same. The Republicans on the other hand have remained remarkably true to the principle that government must not discriminate against Americans on the basis of race.

  • Thanks for the Reagan clip! He certainly has a way of telling a punch line.

  • As for the Democrat Platform – so called “social justice” has won out. Thank you Cardinal Bernardin – and the U.S. bishops and half the clergy who remain registered in the pro-abortion party even still today.

  • well even affirmative action, which obviously does not treat individuals equally, is based on the Dems’ “equality of outcome” philosophy. it’s in keeping with their idea that blacks are still horribly oppressed in this country and the government must give them a leg up. AKA, an overcorrection to past racism.

    it’s also why for all the optimistic talk about how blacks are more socially conservative than whites, the Dems’ combination of affirmative action and successfully painting the GOP as the party of those eeeeeevil white flyover states aren’t gonna have black people voting GOP any time soon.

  • Affirmative action is not just for blacks in the Democrat universe but also for Hispanics and native Americans. Asians can go hang. Interesting how for the Democrats’ favored skin colors always come in the shade of useful voting blocks for the Democrat party.

  • @JDP, my point was not that the Democrats are exactly the same now as they were then. Only to point out that this idea of a time when the Democrat party represented everything wonderful in the world is a fantasy. The fact is the party has a very dismal history, demographic shift or no.

  • Oh, well, Donald, as I have stated times without number, Obama is the High Priest of Satan. He is determined to divide, and hopefully destroy the Catholic Church. But I have news for him……even if you Americans commit suicide by re-electing him, God will hit back, and viciously, too. May each and everyone in your country who calls themselves Catholics, and all people of goodwill, jump into the trenches and vote this Monster out.

Lincoln and the Modern GOP

Friday, July 20, AD 2012

 

Jackie Hogan, head of the Sociology department at Bradley University in Peoria, wrote a piece for the Christian Science Monitor in which she argued that Abraham Lincoln would have difficulty in winning the presidential nomination of the modern Republican Party.  The article cries out for a fisk, and I am happy to oblige:

1. Lincoln ‘invented’ income tax

While Republican candidates today win kudos for signing Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge, it is unlikely that Lincoln would sign on, since he, in effect, invented income tax. That is to say he was the first American president to sign federal income tax into law. And not only that, but it was a progressive income tax, with the wealthiest Americans paying a higher rate.

He made no distinctions between earned income and capital gains – money made was money earned – and Lincoln’s administration needed its cut to pull the nation back from the brink of collapse. Strike one against Honest Abe.

Actually current Republicans would hail the Lincoln income tax.  It had two rates, 3% and 5%.  Many Republicans have been calling for a flat tax for years, and Lincoln’s two tier system with very low rates would receive thunderous  approval from a GOP audience.

2. He didn’t advertise his faith

Strike two: He didn’t advertise his faith. Debate over Lincoln’s religious beliefs is heated. But there’s good evidence that he questioned Christian orthodoxy, perhaps not so surprising at a time when Biblical verses were routinely used to defend slavery, an institution he found morally repugnant.

While it’s true that Lincoln frequently evoked the Divine in his speeches, he never took up membership in a church, and certainly never spoke publicly about his personal relationship with Christ.

I find this to be simply bizarre.  Few Presidents have invoked God more frequently than Lincoln.  This section from the Second Inaugural would certainly brings calls for Lincoln’s impeachment from the American Civil Liberties Union:

 Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Lincoln and the Modern GOP

  • His administration “invented” fiat currency.

    In 1861, they issued paper that was redeemable in gold: okay. A year or two later, they issued about three times more paper redeemable in US Treasury debt: just like today’s Federal Reserve Notes.

    Prior to the CW, US “money” was constitutional: either gold/silver coins or notes, Congress defining the weights and measures, issued by private banks. In 1871, the SCOTUS ruled that fiat money, the “greenback”, is constitutional.

  • The greenbacks were an incredible success in helping finance the War T. Shaw. Unlike the Confederate currency which rapidly reached almost zero value, the Greenbacks retained their value well during the War, and were of course paid in full by the victorious Union government after the War.

  • It takes one Lincoln speech to completely contradict her second point, as you duly noted. Several of her points don’t even apply to the GOP specifically (his looks), and her comment regarding colonization is incorrect (or at least incomplete) from an historical standpoint and really not even germane to the contemporary issue.

    Other than that, truly fascinating.

  • If Gutenberg had known what his invention would someday spawn, I wonder if he’d not have burned the thing out back.

  • Lincoln could do sound bites. He may have given long speeches, but every political speech these days gets cut down to 10 seconds for the nightly news, and Lincoln would have done just fine in this atmosphere.

    Was he not a looker? He was tall and slender, 52 years old when he was elected for the first time. I don’t think his looks would have been a problem.

    The reason he couldn’t get the GOP nomination today is his lack of experience. The Republicans place much more emphasis on the resumes of their candidates. Tea partiers may have supported Lincoln as an outsider, though.

  • Exactly, Mac, the greenback was a highly successful financing/debt vehicle, not really “money.”

    Greenbacks, or variously United States notes, were in circulatiin (alongside Federal Reserve Notes from 1913) until 1966.

    Many blamed the economic panic and depression of 1873 on the Treasury’s contraction of the currency — removed greenbacks from circulation to return to the gold standard, which would require that a $1 note be redeemable for $1 in gold.

    Gold bugs proved stronger in the national debate. In 1878, the total circulation of United States notes was fixed at about $346 million. Eventually, the notes became redeemable (1900 Gold Standard Act) in gold until 1933, when FDR took over; and also confiscated (a stark reversal of his 1932 campaign pledge) all gold coinage held by we the people.

    PS: The second smartest man in history, Isaac Newton, invented the gold standard.

  • Someone needs to write something similar about JFK or Truman. Two Democratic icons whom I think would get freaked out if they saw what happened to their parties in the 1970’s. Plus trying to bring Lincoln into today’s political world is impossible. Would she say that Andrew Jackson would run for the Democratic nomination today? Let’s compare today’s GOP to Eisenhower or Nixon, but c’mon, a president from 150 years ago?

  • “If he came back and the nomination was offered to him by acclamation, I wouldn’t be surprised if he agreed to be the Republican standard-bearer a third time. Lincoln 2012! I like it”
    Donald. I totally disagree with this notion. I believe the reason Lincoln was assassinated is because he might have been offered a third term which he would totally have refused. Suffering ambition and not acting on one’s ailings are the makings of heaven. Honest Abe who counseled men: “If you are given a nickel, use the money to reply in thanksgiving”. Did Lincoln not walk miles to return the debt of $2.00. Honest Abe would not have taken a third term. Lincoln would have taken a V.P. and worked as hard as anybody to resurrect the nation, or any post, even as consultant, to further his nation. We, the people, are Lincoln’s constitutional posterity. Honest Abe’s children and his heirs. Ronald Reagan is the closest heir to Lincoln and rightfully, a president, as Lincoln was heir to George Washington. Let us see the next president of the USA emulate Washington, Lincoln and Reagan. Washington who refused the crown of king (and halo) and a third term. Lincoln who freed the slaves and saved the union because this is what Jesus did, and Reagan who freed those tyrannized by the group, by the “masses” mentality of the “state owns you and yours, you have no soul, no immortal destiny, you have nothing but what we say you have”. Ha, and by people who do not even know the treasures of their own immortal soul. No, Lincoln would not have taken a third term. Obama has yet to act as President of the USA.

  • Chill out Mary. This post was meant to be light hearted. Time to unwind the coil a bit.

  • WK Aiken says:
    “If Gutenberg had known what his invention would someday spawn, I wonder if he’d not have burned the thing out back.” Gutenberg printed the Holy Bible first. There is LIFE in that Book. This alone redeems his printing press.
    Einstein said that if he knew what would be used of his work, he would have become a plumber. All that saId, if one innocent American life was saved by “THE BOMB”, God blessed Einstein’s work.

  • Donald McClarey: Coil unwound. Thanks a bit, now off to man the Right to Life Booth at the Cecil County Fair. Prayers.

  • Mary De Voe says:
    Saturday, July 21, 2012 A.D. at 10:07am
    Donald McClarey: “Coil unwound. Thanks a bit, now off to man the Right to Life Booth at the Cecil County Fair. Prayers.”
    Thanks for your prayers, Right to Life booth did well. I worked alongside a man blind from birth. Not too many right to choosers challenge him. (He gets on a train and goes to work teaching computers to others with his disability) There were many young mothers with four and five and seven children in tow. Many pregnant. It was beautiful.
    The children were especialy beautiful.

    There was at the fair, the Democratic party with a great big red STOP THE WAR ON WOMEN sign. I approached and asked them why it is not on the ballot to voice the will of the people and got no answer. It is their way or no way.

    Please continue to pray. Monday is going to be over 90 degrees. Last year it was 108 degrees, one cow and one goat collapsed from heat exhaustion. A cooler full of ice and a fan work fine.

  • God bless you for your good work Mary! I hope you have no more collapsing livestock! 🙂

  • One Hail Mary for you Donald McClarey.

  • james says:
    Saturday, July 21, 2012 A.D. at 12:24pm
    Interesting

    james
    My humble apologies for the plagiarism of your Blessed Pastor, Reverend Stanislao Esposito’s words: “There is LIFE in that Book”, found in his preaching but not in his blog Heavenwards.org. Do please continue to pray for my mission in the Right to Life. And may God bless.

22 Responses to Paul Ryan and Catholic Social Teaching (Roundup)

  • It’s been a while since you’ve posted here Chris.

  • While not perfect, Ryan offers a vision that is not contrary to CST. He does seem to get it wrong when he equates subsidiarity with Federalism. However, Federalism does not seem contrary to the concept of solidarity or subsidiarity and so seems a reasonable position to hold. In fact his error seems less eggregious than the one of equating solidarity with increased state involvement, increased taxes etc. So perhaps a B+ in his understanding. (Perhaps a good a grade as most clerics unfortunately would receive.)

    A solid A however, for offering a position which is consistent with CST and challenges those who believe CST is merely a theological formulation of leftist programs or fringe, quasi-economic theories.

  • In Ayn Rand more than anyone else, did a fantastic job of explaining the morality of capitalism, the morality of individualism, and this to me is what matters most.

    Yeah, because those are two points that are really popular to defend outside of the libertarian circles and the standard Crazy Old Uncle….

    If folks have an issue with Ryan’s claim, please– explain who does it better? Not like ‘capitalism’ as a label is all that old; it’s not like the religious calls to groups over individuals haven’t been co-opted for political aims.

    I’m not going to hold my breath for a Bishop to defend the dignity of the poor when it comes to not being treated like house pets.

  • The best defense of the Ryan budget is this quote from Adam Smith:

    “When national debts have once been accumulated to a certain degree, there is scarce, I believe, a single instance of their having been fairly and completely paid. The liberation of the public revenue,if it has ever been brought about at all, has always been brought about by bankruptcy; sometimes by an avowed one, but always by a real one, though frequently by a pretend payment.”

    We reduce expenditures radically, or ultimately our economy will take a blow that we will be decades recovering from. I guarantee that in such a circumstance the poor will suffer more than any of us.

  • “We reduce expenditures radically, or ultimately our economy will take a blow that we will be decades recovering from. I guarantee that in such a circumstance the poor will suffer more than any of us.”

    This is one way to state the obvious. There is saying I used to hear all the time during my Navy days was that” S@#t rolls down hill.” I would have to say that principle applies here.

  • Note that it is possible to be guided by Catholic social teaching (which, as far as I can tell, is all that Ryan actually claimed) yet arrive at a conclusion the bishops find unsatisfactory.
    This is Ryan’s job – he undoubtably knows more about the facts and constraints of the problems than do the bishops. Many would like a solution that continues to fund entitlements as they are, but actual facts and constraints dictate that it is not possible to do that.
    The comments about ‘failing to protect the dignity of the poor’ sounds like a reflexive response. Many government programs erode that dignity; we are long overdue for an examination of the harmful effects that result. For example, school-lunch programs have expanded so much that they now cover multiple meals per day and almost everyone is eligible. Doesn’t this erode the dignity of parenthood, by removing the responsibility of feeding your own children?
    Many objected to welfare reform, too, decades ago…

  • Well, they didn’t exactly say Ryan is starving little children.

    The bishops don’t understand. The government is the problem.

    Case in point: in the first quarter 2012, the national debt expanded to $15.6 trillion. That is higher than the US gross domestic product for that date; and 1.5-times the percentage growth rate growth rate of the evil, unjust private sector GDP for which the Obama regime needs four more years to compete its destruction. Add to that unfunded commitments at the federal, state, county, and municipal levels and it’s HUGE.

    The national debt and local requirements will impoverish our children and grandchildren.

    Additionally, Re: Matthew 25 (it’s only in Matthew) doesn’t read: “I was hungry and you voted for Obama (fed me), I was thirsty and you attacked a Catholic Congressman (gave me to drink), . . . You get it.

    At the Final Judgment (Matt. 25): if you did it with other people’s money, it was not Charity.

  • Pingback: The Ryan Budget and Catholic Social Teaching « Blogs For Victory
  • It’s precisely the way he has handled the Ayn Rand story that gives me pause on defending him. It appears to me that he wants to pretend that he never held her up as a model, but the record shows otherwise. When I see Paul Ryan defending life and marriage with as much passion as he defends the dollar, I’ll be more apt to be convinced.

  • [Foxfier] “If folks have an issue with Ryan’s claim, please– explain who does it better?”

    The problem for me is that there’s too much baggage attached to ‘Atlas Shrugged’ to see a Catholic politician promoting it to the extent that Ryan has. Recalling my tortured reading, I found it to be thinly-veiled propaganda piece in which Rand’s own Objectivism is piled on pretty heavily. Egoism reigns supreme. For me, it’s difficult to extract from Rand’s book a “morality of capitalism” that isn’t already tainted by her own philosophy and anthropology. It wasn’t just the left that opposed Rand’s philosophy, but mainstream conservatism as well

    As far as individuals who Ryan might have praised as having articulated an ethic of democratic capitalism, Ryan would have made a better impression if he mentioned F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, or better yet, Michael Novak (The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism) and John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus.

    For Ryan to consistently wax evangelical about Ayn Rand’s and Atlas Shrugged through the past decade, only to suddenly in the past week have an about-face and disclaim that her philosophy is wholly “anti-thetical to his own” strikes me as a bit … “opportune”. Why now? — well, if genuine I’m happy about his sudden revelation.

    That said, with respect to Paul Ryan’s work in Washingon — his budget proposals, his spearheading the critique of Obamacare at the health care summit, et al., I’m supportive. Clearly, he’s one of the few who actually gives a damn about where this country is headed and wants to do something about it. To those who criticize his efforts on the budget, I agree with Professor Garnet: the onus is on them to respond to the challenges that he identifies.

    [Greg] “It’s been a while since you’ve posted here Chris.”

    Thanks. Work has been crazy, but I’m appreciative to still have the opportunity. =)

  • Fully agreed, Don (on Ryan’s pro-life record).

  • Agreed with Lisa and Christopher on their qualms re: Ryan and Atlas Shrugged. I’ve written about the book before, and there is little redeeming about the tome. As Christopher said above, there are plenty of other great works that defend capitalism much more concisely and thoroughly without being morally objectionable. That said, Ryan’s record demonstrates a solid commitment to social issues as well.

  • All I know is that letting capitalism work and a free market system seemed to create enough income for our fairly large family with enough to share with those less fortunate, the pro-life cause, Native American needs. Now since the sewage of government intervention continually seeps into every aspect of our operation we have less money, therefore less time as we have to work more off the farm jobs, longer hours for much less and are so tired we are having a hard time keeping up with any of it.
    surely you cannot think that Paul Ryan’s plan would not take care of those truly in need. That’s what the goal should be. It might be hard for people at first but if the country could get back to work and real earned income came back into the system we might be able to pull out of this. As long as we continue to be socially engineered we haven’t got a chance. I still don’t understand how BO got elected in the first place. Gotta go, have to change light bulbs in the barn, and put soap in the milkhouse sink or we’ll get kicked off Grade A. “rules” ya better not break or the “inspectors” will make your life miserable.

  • Christopher B-
    I didn’t say “articulated an ethic of democratic capitalism,” I specifically quoted the explaining the morality of capitalism, the morality of individualism.

    Others may do a better job in covering the technicalities and whys and all the things that are important once you have the idea, but Rand is accessible to those who don’t already agree.
    Terry Pratchett has a running joke about “That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way”. The more I teach folks, the more that makes perfect sense.

    Incidentally? Searching on Bing for “The Spirit of Democratic Populism” brings up zero results.

    The other examples that come to mind are Animal Farm and the various movies that have clones as main characters who are going to be killed for their organs. Inaccurate. Drama over accuracy, and world view taints them…but they humanize a view enough for people to consider the reality.

  • Yes, Rep. Ryan’s about-face is peculiar (to put it gently), but here’s hoping.

    It’s probably giving Rand entirely too much credit to call her “philosophy” a philosophy, though her enthusiasts certainly wax flatulent in their praise of her “insights.” One called her the “corrector of Aristotle,” which makes me profusely thank God that I did not have a beverage making its way to my innards at the time.

    In fact, it’s best to think of Rand as the distaff half of the coin to L. Ron Hubbard, as I said to the misguided Rand groupie. The parallels are interesting:

    both were moderately talented (if woefully unedited) writers. Each wrote science fiction, or at least future-oriented fiction, and each enjoyed considerable success in the 50s. Both developed grandiose notions about their competence outside of the field of fiction writing, and each developed what they regarded as systematic wholistic philosophies for living and interacting with fellow humans. Both still have significant, if decidedly minority, followings today, and have followers who make unsupportable claims about their intellectual legacies and the applicability of their legacies to the problems of today.

    That said (and there was more than the simple motivation to zing Rand), I think it’s a little overblown to worry about someone getting ensnared into an objectivist worldview. It’s idiosyncratic, and only seems to have worked for an egotistical horny Russian emigre’ pulp writer of the female persuasion. Most will cull from it a few bits regarding the dangers of collectivism and move on. The rest can be ignored as they toil away in their cubicles.

  • Christopher B-
    found it, “The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism;” a political conversion story probably won’t change minds unless they’ve already been prepped to at least consider the idea that they could be wrong, and the emotional impact of a story tends to do that. (Side note: haven’t read any of Rand’s stuff, I can’t stand stories that are sermons before they’re stories, and folks whose taste I trust have told me that’s what she wrote. I just know that’s a strange turn of taste, and I know a large number of formerly unthinkingly leftist folks who are now slightly less unthinking libertarians because of Rand, and some who already went through that stage and are now fairly conservative, or at least think about why they think what they think.)

  • “a political conversion story probably won’t change minds unless they’ve already been prepped to at least consider the idea that they could be wrong”

    Perhaps. (Sorry for the ‘populism’ typo earlier, corrected). But to give some credit to Novak’s work — despite it being non-fiction, it has gone through a number of underground printings and being an inin then-socialist nations in the 80’s (Communist Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc.) and changed a few minds.

    I agree with your point — giving credit where it’s due, Atlas Shrugged has probably change quite a few minds from the left-wing socialist persuasion. Even so, Rand’s “capitalist ethic” insofar as it manifests itself in her fiction seems to me too irretrievably tainted by her pure egoism and materialism, leaving no room for altruisim (or even religion). There’s a reason why mainstream conservativism sought to distance itself from it upon publication (ex. Big sister is Watching You, Whittaker Chambers National Review 1957; or more recently, Paul’s own review).

    In the end, Ayn Rand’s fiction puts forth the worst kind of stereotype of “capitalism” (and the nature of the capitalist) that you could ask for — and insofar as we do Randian’s ethic is lauded as an ideal to be pursued, liberals couldn’t ask for anything better as a target.

    Hence not the kind of work I’d envision a professed Catholic peddling to the degree that Ryan has done over the years, so I’m relieved at hearing of his “repudiation” and hope for the best.

  • (Sorry for the ‘populism’ typo earlier, corrected).

    I insert totally different words related to a topic all the time, especially when I’m talking. Part of why I love typing instead– I can go back over and re-read in hopes of catching really bad examples. Probably some kind of diagnosable thingie, if I wasn’t just fine calling it me being all flutter-brains.

    In the end, Ayn Rand’s fiction puts forth the worst kind of stereotype of “capitalism” (and the nature of the capitalist) that you could ask for — and insofar as we do Randian’s ethic is lauded as an ideal to be pursued, liberals couldn’t ask for anything better as a target.

    Agreed– but it does so in a sympathetic way. I really wish that most folks my age were objective enough to not believe the worst stereotype of “the other side” was accurate, but that isn’t so; having a book that appeals to their existing tendencies while being Kabuki Heartless Capitalism is pretty effective. College libertarians aren’t great to be around, but they beat college anarchists.

  • The World cannot embrace the truth. If it could, capitalism would need no defense.

    Capitalism may be the worst economic system, except for all the others.

    Go to the historical record. Capitalism stands apart from other so-called economic systems. Anti-capitalist nations devolved into hell holes of universal envy and mass brigandage. They had one common denominator: command economy/socialism.

    Capitalism is the cure for poverty.

  • Pingback: Distributism Paul Ryan Catholic Social Teaching Catholic | The Pulpit
  • I believe the criticisms of Paul Ryan and his admiration for Ayn Rand are examples of jumping to false conclusions or at least jumping to “false concerns.”

    Ryan is not inconsistent when he states being influenced by Rand’s economics, yet does not accept her philosophy in toto. Moreover, based upon what Ryan proposes, it should be obvious to even the casual reader that he goes way beyond anything that Rand would approve. How about letting these actions speak for themselves instead of lamenting over Ryan’s appreciation of Randian economic principles?

    As Aquinas was said to have “baptized” Aristotle, if you take all of what Ryan proposes, plus his pro-life and other Catholic stances, etc., you don’t have to conclude that he “baptizes” Rand, but he does find ways to take what Rand teaches (as well as others) and incorporate some of those insights into an approach consistent with Catholic teaching.

    But similar to the fallacy known as Reductio ad Hitlerum, some are jumping all over Paul Ryan in what might be called Reductio ad Ayn Rand despite the fact that Paul Ryan has distanced himself from many aspects of Randian philosophy that does not square with Catholic teaching. Ryan has made the distinctions clear, his actions illustrate this, and yet some people see his admiration for Ayn Rand economics as his defining characteristic, or it is considered to be very troubling.

    Here’s a logic-type question for all those who do not believe Ryan is “Catholic enough” in his economic philosophy because of his admiration for Randian economic libertarianism, and he “should” distance himself more from Rand:

    If Ryan’s appreciation for Ayn Rand is problematic because of some Randian views that do not square with Catholic teaching, then why is it not equally problematic to accept and even praise government involvement in various programs that help the poor to some extent, since the government champions many views that don’t square with Catholic teaching?

    Double Standard?

    DB
    Omnia Vincit Veritas

    P.S. I set forth a series of questions regarding “Moralnomics and the US Bishops” at my blog. If interested, you can check it out at:

    http://vlogicusinsight.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/moralnomics-what-the-us-bishops-fail-to-realize/

Romney 29%-Santorum 21% Nationally

Thursday, January 5, AD 2012

Rasmussen is first out of the gates with a national poll of the Republican candidates following Iowa.   Santorum has risen 17 points to 21% with Romney at 29%.  Gingrich is at 16% and Ron Paul is at 12%.  Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry are both at 4%.   Romney seems incapable of moving out of the twenties in any of the national polls on the Republican nomination.  Santorum has a lot of room to grow, and Romney seems to have hit a firm ceiling for his support in regard to the nomination race.

Continue reading...

21 Responses to Romney 29%-Santorum 21% Nationally

  • Of course the Catholic Social Justice types are out now with their denunciations of Santorum:

    http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/fplaction/the-catholic-case-against-rick-santorum/

    Perhaps we can start to take these points one by one to show how some are using CST for rank partisan purposes.

  • “The baby is born when the baby is born.” Barbara Boxer is such a deep thinker.

  • That poll proves that Romney hasn’t hit a ceiling. The previous Rasmussen poll had Romney at 17%. It’s true that Romney has never hit above 30% in any poll (with the exception of PPP which seems to be a random number generator). It’s also true that nobody has hit above 40%. It’s hard with so many candidates. RealClearPolitics has Romney at the highest level of support ever. Higher than Cain ever got. There’s no reason to believe it won’t rise further.

    On Intrade, Santorum’s rise has hurt Gingrich but it hasn’t affect Romney. In fact, Romney’s numbers have improved, presumably because Santorum is the less threat.

  • Pingback: Rick Santorum Thursday Roundup | ThePulp.it
  • with the exception of PPP which seems to be a random number generator

    LOL!

  • “Of course the Catholic Social Justice types are out now with their denunciations of Santorum:”

    Yes, they always seem to put a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger down their memory hole:

    “3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

    http://www.tldm.org/news7/ratzinger.htm

  • Yes, they always seem to put a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger down their memory hole

    Not in this particular case. The blog Phillip linked to brought up perfectly legit issues working against Santorum and it made no attempt to compare them to abortion and euthanasia. Catholics who ignore bishops’ (and popes’) pastoral guidance on these matters in order to vote party line do so at their own peril (in my opinion).

  • Well Spambot the Pope noted that their could be a legitimate diversity of issues on issues such as war and peace and that not all moral issues carry the same weight. I tend to attempt to not be more Catholic than the Pope. Then we have the fact that the group putting this tripe out is a George Soros funded machine to attack all Catholic politicians to the right of Ted Kennedy:

    http://lesfemmes-thetruth.blogspot.com/2011/02/soros-money-funds-faith-based-community.html

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/why-is-atheist-george-soros-giving-money-to-a-faith-project/

    http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2009/09/15/faith-in-public-life-socialism-cloaked-as-christianity/

  • CatholicVote.org endorsed Santorum today. That doesn’t hurt.
    http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=24668

  • Just saw Santorum on The OReilly Factor last night. I was a little disappointed. Bill completely misrepresentation regarding Catholic Teaching on birth control and Santorum really seemed to back off from calling him out on it. In fact Bill gave him an opening to go into social issues more and Santorum dodged the question.

    In fairness, I know that Santorum has limited time to respond to questions thrown at him. I am sure he was completely caught off guard by the question.

    But it really seemed as I was watching the interview live that Bill needed to be corrected on his. He completely butchered Catholic teaching on birth control. Santorum made some silly faces after Bill said it, but never followed up on it. Considering millions of people were watching it seemed to me the sort of thing that really needed to be corrected. Especially since Bill brought it up and gave Santorum the chance for a follow up on it.

    For those uninformed people watching the exchange you would probably think Bill was right about birth control after the exchange.

    I guess the very fact that birth control even came up is a good thing

  • O’Reilly was doing his best to torpedo Santorum last night. He brought up the fact that when asked a question on the subject Santorum had said that states do have a right to ban contraception. O’Reilly then asked Santorum if pressing for such a law would be a priority in a Santorum administration and Santorum said absolutely not. O’Reilly is buffoonish at best in most areas of knowledge and normally I would ascribe his questioning Santorum on a non-issue to simple ignorance, but I believe he had malice aforethought against Santorum in the interview yesterday.

    Santorum of course was making the point that a state could ban contraceceptives because he believes that Griswold v. Connecticut, the 1967 US Supreme Court decision holding state bans on contraceptives to be unconstitutional under a right to privacy, was wrongly decided. Griswold set the stage for Roe. Of course all of this is far, far beyond O’Reilly’s knowledge base.

  • I think Santorum handled the O’Reilly interview pretty well. Santorum knows that debating contraception isn’t going to win him any votes. No sense in dwelling on the topic.

    But I want to pin down Santorum’s exact position. So he’s personally opposed to contraception. But he’s said that he doesn’t want to ban it. I guess that’s morally permissible if you think banning it would do more social harm. But Santorum has voted to fund contraception. Is that morally permissible?

  • Spambot,

    I think the only places one can legitimately (though not necessarily correctly) critique Santorum are on torture and war. The former I think Santorum would agree is wrong but he believes that certain techniques performed during the Bush Administration are not torture. Perhaps if the Church clearly stated Enhanced Interrogation Techniques in all circumstances were torture and he persisted in his view, one could then say he is clearly out of line with the Church. I think he has a harder time with attacking Iran.

    The remaining items in the link regarding income inequality, immigration etc. seem so fraught with prudential judgments that it merely is a laundry list of the liberal establishment. Prudential judgments, even by Church leaders, do not bind one’s conscience. Unfortunately, most of our Bishops do not make that fact clear.

  • I think Santorum handled the O’Reilly interview pretty well. Santorum knows that debating contraception isn’t going to win him any votes. No sense in dwelling on the topic.

    I would agree except that Bill framed it as a “Catholic” position, and not a general “conservative” or “republican” position. It seemed that framing it that way relieved Santorum somewhat in that it became an issue of what Catholic teaching is. Basically a case of one Catholic correcting another Catholic on an aspect of the faith.

    I am not skilled in the ways of politics, and most likely naive regarding this. Very likely a battle regarding Catholic teaching wouldn’t be a good political move. But it seemed like the opening existed for more to be said and just maybe a little clarification would have been a good thing.

  • Why should we trust a one day poll of 1,000 GOP over Gallups three day averages? I desperately want to believe the rasmussen poll (and now that Bachmann is gone I am for Santorum either way), but isn’t the 11% number more likely? I want to believe it isn’t.

  • I have high trust in Rasmussen’s numbers Ike based upon my prior experience with him and other pollsters. We will soon have more polls to draw comparisons with. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are a few showing Santorum ahead of Romney by this time next week.

  • Still waiting for someone to explain to me how Santorum’s support for funding contraception is morally permissible.

  • Phillip & Don,

    Thanks for the replies. I’ll keep it all in mind. (I think what concerns me is that it’s not one bishop saying one thing and another bishop saying something else. On the issues discussed in the link, there seems to be a set of fairly unified and consistent positions among the bishops who have expressed opinions. Not risng to the level of inerrant teaching, but not something to ignore either.)

  • Spambot,

    Fair enough. However, a quick response. The bishops uniformly opposed welfare reform. It passed anyway and most likely had a positive effect on poverty, work and the common good.

    Prudential judgments, even by the host of bishops, remain prudential judgments.

  • Spambot,

    This from Vox Nova by commenter “A Sinner.” An excellent rebuttal of the prevailing distortions about CST by some and better worded than I could:

    “I don’t like all these things about him either. But “show me the dogma.”

    Vox Nova’s tactic has fallen ridiculously flat of trying to “give the conservative heresy-hunters a taste of their own medicine” by trying to draw equivalency with disagreement on the prudential question of the concrete means of implementing social teachings (of which the absolute abstract moral principles in themselves…are much broader and more vague than you’re making them out to be, and there IS plenty of room for debate on whether this or that given solution fulfills the criteria).

    Now, albeit, I do generally believe the in the approach of the Vatican and USCCB towards economic questions and immigration and war, etc. But to act like Catholics have to toe the line on specific policy questions like that is very dangerous. The conservatives may (with things like the culture wars and abortion and gay issues) bring religion too much into politics, but the sort of “obedience” to “Catholic social teaching” you are proposing here would bring too much of politics into our religion!

    I support both positions, to be sure, but amnesty for immigrants or supporting Medicaid or opposing the Iraq War…are simply not De Fide questions, and there is certainly a lot more room for debate and disagreement about the application of various moral principles there than is about the statement ‘the State has a duty to defend unborn life.’”

  • Vote counters in Iowa are saying that one precinct erred and gave Romney 20 extra votes. So Santorum really won by 12. However, there’s no recount process so Romney is still the official winner.

January TAC GOP Presidential Poll

Tuesday, January 3, AD 2012

UPDATE 1-8-2012:  We have eliminated Ron Paul due to spamming issues.  If you feel the need to cast a vote for Ron Paul, please do s0 by leaving a comment.

John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani, Buddy Roemer, and Paul Ryan never announced their candidacy for the GOP nomination as some had speculated, so they have been removed from the TAC Poll.  In addition, Gary Johnson has removed himself from consideration the moment he accepted the Libertarian Party Nomination.  Herman Cain has suspended his campaign which is nothing more than preventing the inevitable.

Here’s our latest poll so please vote in anticipation of the Iowa Caucuses (voting ends 7pm this Friday):

 

Continue reading...

65 Responses to January TAC GOP Presidential Poll

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY POLITICS EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY MORNING EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: Rick Santorum Roundup | ThePulp.it
  • I am surprised to see that Santorum is doing so well on this poll. Is it because he’s Catholic? I hope not, because the Catholic church teaches, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” I do not see this practiced by Santorum in his legislative ethics, nor in his strident efforts to promote war with Iran, and now countries in South America (see the Iowa debate).

    The candidate who truly espouses peace is Dr. Ron Paul, and he has my support in the hopes that his administration would be one of peace & goodwill.

    whyronpaul.com

  • There is a difference between espousing peace Cynthia and being a naive fool about foreign powers that mean harm to us. Ron Paul crossed that line long ago. His viewpoint of course is that the rest of the world can go to Hell while America huddles down in Fortess America. Somehow I do not think that foreign policy lives up to the admonition of Christ that you cited.

    In regard to our Civil War Ron Paul believes it was completely unneccessary. Go to the link below explaining why he was wrong:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/08/23/ron-paul-and-the-civil-war/

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY EVENING EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Two Paulbots have been banned for their charming attempt to recycle a slur against Santorum hurled by homosexual activists. All such additional attempts will go into the trash where they belong and the attempted commenter will be banned from this site.

  • It’s been pretty ugly for Santorum as the Militant Gay Lobby has been harrassing Santorum with their KKK tactics all throughout his Iowa campaign. It’s no coincidence that Paulbots are doing the same to Santorum considering that Ron Paul wrote racist newsletters up until the 1990s.

  • Oh look, the Paulbots are stacking our poll:

    “Little poll that sanatorium is winning…

    Submitted by Howimademy on Wed, 01/04/2012 – 19:54.

    Thought it’d be fun to just knock him out of first…silly, maybe…fun, yes. 🙂

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/01/03/january-tac-gop-…”

    http://www.dailypaul.com/199365/iowa-caucus-night-info-open-thread?#comments

    Of course this has ever been the tactic of Ron Paul cultists. Too bad for them that they can’t win elections in real life.

  • Too bad for them that they can’t win elections in real life.

    Or friends or jobs or a life . . .

  • What bothers me (off topic just a bit), is that Sarah Palin are warning Republicans to not alienate these 9/11 Truthers, ie, Paulbots.

    Of course, this came a day after she said that “its not (Michele) Bachman time”. Considering that she has almost zero executive experience, I found this truly rich.

  • Ron Paul is no doubt the most Biblical candidate for 2012, if you are a true believer you would support Dr. Ron Paul. Here is a short series explaining as to why he is:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tYk5mEli68&feature=BFa&list=PL0E27AFB852E14B16&lf=player_embedded

    I urge everyone to watch this series so you can understand as to why he is the most Biblical candidate and why believers should support him and no other candidate. If you don’t you are just lying to yourselves and/or others.

  • Most Biblical? Indeed! Here is exclusive video of Ron Paul leading the Paulbots out of Iowa and across the Mississippi:

  • Are you proud to mock your religion?

  • I am a Catholic John. I mock the Ron Paul Cult that you are obviously a card carrying member of. Read back your original comment to yourself. It would be too much if applied to George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, let alone Ron Paul. It comes across as completely over the top and invites the type of mockery that I gave it.

  • We will see.

  • They are just like cochroaches aren’t they…the Paulinista’s…they seem to be everywhere…I gotta give them credit…they are organized, but then so were the borg.

  • It was bound to happen in one of these polls that the Paulbots would manipulate poll. They know they can’t win, so instead of letting poll develop organically they spam it. Fortunately, that doesn’t work in politics. We can pretty much throw out the Ron Paul vote, meaning that Santorum has the Catholic vote behind him.

  • I am all in favor of ending the IRS.

    Thats one of the reasons I am voting for Ron Paul. (as if thats not enough by itself)

  • Pingback: THURSDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: THURSDAY MORNING EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • I would say, there is no greater media cheerleader for Ron Paul right now than Judge Andrew Napolitano, who is Catholic. Regarding Rick Santorum, I must ask, “What could be more ‘pro-life’ than peace?” What does “waterboarding” have to do with “family values”? I apologize for “Paulbots” who may have offended you. However, I am genuinely concerned that a President Santorum or a President Gingrich would start World War III in the Middle East by bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities for no good reason except political expediency.

  • I do not think Catholics can take Santorum seriously. Although he spouts pro life rhetoric at times, he places a higher value on politics. Why did he support Arlen Specter’s candidacy for Senate over Pat Toomey? Toomey was pro life while pro choice Specter was head of the judiciary committee and had fought Robert Bork.

  • Santorum was always a pro-life leader in Congress. He fought hard for every pro-life piece of legislation and always voted pro-life. In regard to the Specter endorsement in 2004, as the tight Presidential polls that year indicated, there was every prospect that 2004 was going to be a bad year for the Republicans. The Democrats had slightly more seats up than the Republicans, 19-15 in the Senate that year, but the playing ground was fairly even. On election night Kentucky, Florida and Alaska were fairly close, and South Dakota was won by a hair. Control of the Senate would have shifted if those elections had gone the other way, and they might well have.

    Santorum extracted a pledge from Specter that he would support every Supreme Court nominee sent up by Bush. This pledge was crucial if control of the Senate had shifted or if the Republicans had come back with a diminished majority .

    I think what Santorum did was reasonable at the time, assuming that one’s goal is to have Supreme Court justices on the Court that will overturn Roe. Bush lost Pennsylvania to Kerry, and I think it likely that Toomey might well have been defeated that year, considering that he only got 51% of the vote in 2010, the best election year for Republicans since Calvin Coolidge was in office.

  • “would say, there is no greater media cheerleader for Ron Paul right now than Judge Andrew Napolitano, who is Catholic.”

    He is also a paranoid conspiracy nut like Ron Paul. He is a 9-11 Truther among other charming conspiracy theories he partakes in.

  • Ron Paul does not ‘work well with others’ as the old grade school report card used to say. Whatever his viewpoints, if one hasn’t that power to sway other powerful and intelligent people to your side it is wasted. In all his years in Congress he has been a moody, strange loner. He’s like the kid who sniffed his fingers and his mother attach his mittens to his snow suit so he wouldn’t lose them. No one wants him on a team.

  • These folks make a habit of just spamming polls:
    http://www.dailypaul.com/200240/a-whole-bunch-of-polls-have-at-em

    Because nothing says your candidate is a massively popular guy on his way to winning a nomination than having to spend your entire day spamming meaningless internet polls.

    Well, at 8.6% unemployment, it’s understandable how they have the time to dither their day away. Doing arduous things like brushing up on that ole resume is just a bummer activity.

  • Completely counterproductive activity since everyone knows that the Paulbots do this, but they persist in it anyway merely to be annoying. Juvenile and delusional which basically sums up the Ron Paul Cult.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • “I think what Santorum did was reasonable at the time, assuming that one’s goal is to have Supreme Court justices on the Court that will overturn Roe.”

    This is where I would take issue with you.
    Let us examine the nominees of Bush:
    Roberts: pro life, but I doubt he would overturn Roe v Wade due to his belief in Stare Decisis.
    Harriet Myers: ???
    Alito: Pro Life, but it is not clear he would overturn Roe V Wade.
    Digging deeper, it was Arlen Specter who reportedly dissuaded Bush from nominating Alberto Gonzalez.
    So, by making the political bargain Santorum did, he passed on opportunity to remove a staunch pro choicer in exchange for gaining no headway in overturning Roe V Wade. I am not sure I believe Toomey was a sure loser against Spectre, as Spectre generally won by thin margins, though you make a good point. I see Santorum as playing party politics rather than sticking to his stated principles. I really do not trust him. I am from Pennsylvania and have followed his political career going back to before he was elected to the US House when he upset Doug Walgren.

  • Considering that Alberto Gonzalez is a pro-abort I think it was a very good thing that Specter talked Bush out of nominating him, although I hadn’t heard that. In regard to Roberts and Alito, judging from their votes in a partial birth abortion case, Gonzales v. Carhart, I have little doubt that they would vote to overturn Roe if the opportunity presents itself.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart

  • I am a Ron Paul supporter. I’m not a Paulbot, not even sure what that means. I’m also a pro life follower of Jesus Christ. I’m not a pothead and I don’t spam polls. I do however go to any poll I can find and cast my vote for Ron. There are 3 people of voting age in my household and many times we can’t all cast our votes for Ron because most polls only allow one vote per IP address.

    I would like to personally apologize for the knuckleheads who tried to post the Santorum stuff on here. Something to consider though. We have a lot of young people in our camp, young people don’t really care to much for what us older folks would call propriety. I guarantee you, if you were to come over to Ron Paul forums or the DailyPaul and meet some of the people there that we are mostly, such as yourselves, kind and decent folk.

    Most of us only want to live in peace with our neighbors and the world. We love our country and see it slipping away from us. We are losing our God given rights buy the day, bankrupting ourselves with endless wars and entitlements, etc, etc. We love America, we love our neighbors, and we want to be free.

    You can hate us if you want to, not a very Christian thing to do but what the heck, live and let live. We are people just like you but with a different perspective, one that we did not get from CNN or FOX news. Many people don’t realize this but there is not one main stream media news network that isn’t owned by a larger enterprise that makes most of their money from the military industrial complex. Don’t take my word for it, look it up.

    As I said, I am staunchly pro life as many of my fellow Ron Paul supporters are, but for us, being pro life extends beyond the womb. There are 75 million human beings living in Iran, approximately 50 million women and children. I personally am not willing that even a single one of them be sacrifice so that I might sleep a little better at night. Besides, God has not given me a Spirit of fear, it’s in the Bible, you can look that up too.

    Please get the facts about our candidate before you dismiss him entirely, there are hundreds of videos all over the internet of Ron Paul in his own words. The media misrepresents Ron Paul and often flat out lies about him or puts words in his mouth. For example, Bill O’Reilly just said last night that Ron Paul said he didn’t want to be President, a bald faced lie. These are the kind of things that we are fighting against and some of us take it a little too far at times.

    God bless you all, and have a great day.

  • I agree, Don. I certainly think that Roberts and Alito would *like* to overturn Roe. As principled jurists (unlike Roe’s authors), they do have to take stare decisis principles into account, which does make the outcome harder to predict. That said, beyond reversing Roe outright, pro-life forces certainly favor judges who are sympathetic to their strategy of chipping away at Roe so as to limit its applicability as much as possible, and certainly Alito and Roberts fall within that description.

    I think the criticisms directed toward Myers were over the top and unfair. In any case I have no reason to believe that her jurisprudence vis-a-vis Roe would differ from that of Roberts or Alito.

  • In any case I have no reason to believe that her jurisprudence vis-a-vis Roe would differ from that of Roberts or Alito.

    The objection to her nomination went beyond how she’d decide cases to the potential quality of her jurisprudence. But that’s a debate for another time.

  • Ditto what Tito said re: “KKK tactics”

    Rick Santorum 2012!

  • Archie, I do want to commend you on your thoughtful comment. I do wish that more Ron Paul supporters were as reaonable and polite as you – frankly it would help his own cause if he didn’t have his supporters making such disgusting attack ads as this one against Huntsman.
    http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2012/01/05/you-stay-classy-ron-paul-supporters/

    Please get the facts about our candidate before you dismiss him entirely, there are hundreds of videos all over the internet of Ron Paul in his own words.

    Archie, the reason most of the people here think he is so far out there is precisely because of what we’ve seen Paul say in his own words. Frankly people like O’Reilly are full of hot air anyway, and I don’t need to listen to him in order to come to my own conclusions.

  • Paul, thank you for your kind words. I saw the video you posted, silly really. I’m not sure what they were trying to prove. Huntsman is a decent enough guy and a very successful businessman, he obviously is not my first choice but I wouldn’t rule him out were he to win the nomination. My son speaks Chinese as well, so I’m really not sure how that’s a bad thing. What can I say, it’s politics, sometimes it’s ugly, sometimes just plain ridiculous.

    In fairness, Huntsman ran a very biased and misleading attack piece on Ron Paul as well, taking his words out of context and basically saying he was crazy. If you don’t agree with Ron that’s fine, but his views are particularly well thought out, not crazy. Concerning foreign policy, he has been supported by some of the better minds on the subject. The CIA has written and warned about “blowback” and the 9/11 commission report agreed with much of what he has been saying for years.

    Those of us in the Paul camp who have lived a little longer are a bit easier to deal with and welcome rigorous intellectual debate on the issues. If there is something that you have heard Ron say that troubles you or gives you pause, I am very interested to know what those statements may have been. BTW, I’m very pleased to hear that you are not one of the mindless drones who takes every word from FOX as if it came down from Mt. Sinai.

    Love and Peace in Jesus Christ

  • Father of five, Knights of Columbus Grand Knight here. Ron Paul is the only option for me when I size up the candidates against my faith. We don’t want the world to go to hell in a hand basket. Evil countries, evil men, and evil ideas around the world need to be stopped. It’s just the the US Federal Government should not be in charge of this. It’s not their role. The US Federal Government isn’t the only way to combat evil. We can combat it here in our north western hemisphere and the other countries of the world can pick up their own slack.

  • “We can combat it here in our north western hemisphere and the other countries of the world can pick up their own slack.”

    The Ukranian man made famine under Stalin, the Katyn Massacre, the Rape of Nanking, the Cultural Revolution, and the list could be endless, shows how well that tends to work out in practice.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY POLITICS EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Donald, I understand your point. I’m not saying Americans shouldn’t do anything about these horrible atrocities around the world. I’m just saying that tax should not be collected from all American’s to fund a military operation across the world.

    What I believe should happen is what happened before we became the police of the world. Allow American’s to join foreign armies in times of need so that if an American is willing they can make a difference. If 51% of able-bodied American’s joined a foreign force to combat evil and/or contributed funds to these causes I think we would see evil be defeated in many cases.

    If you think that 51% of able-bodied American’s would not serve or fund other countries across the world on their own… then you and I have something in common. If 51% of American’s would not give money or risk their lives for other counties, then why the hell is our Federal Government doing this in the first place? Is it because “it’s the right thing to do”, or because it’s “just and righteous”? That’s what they told us about Iraq and i have to say I don’t believe them anymore.

    This is why I have changed my mind. I will (or want to) contribute my time and money to causes I feel are “just” and “righteous”. I don’t want the government taking my money and giving it to who they feel, or just say, rightfully deserves it.

  • “The Ukranian man made famine under Stalin, the Katyn Massacre, the Rape of Nanking, the Cultural Revolution, and the list could be endless, shows how well that tends to work out in practice.”

    What did the US do about any of that?

    We did not bomb or invade them.

    Should we have bombed Ukraine, China, etc. to stop killing innocents?

  • We should do what we can T. Shaw to stop innocents from being massacred. Sometimes we effectively lack the power to do anything about it, but we should never rest our foreign policy on the presumption that murder of innocents abroad is none of our business. In regard to China, if we had effectively supported the Nationalists, corrupt though they were, in their war against Mao in 1945-49, how many tens of millions of lives might have been saved? After the Bolshevik Revolution, 1917-1919, the US and its allies had an opportunity to support the Whites against the Reds. Instead the US and its allies tired of the conflict, pulled out of Russia and the Soviet Union was established, with the consequences to the world that we are all familiar with. When we refuse to fight evils at the outset, the evils often do not disappear, but grow in strength and end up killing hordes of innocents.

    This section from Proverbs 24 has always hit home to me in this area:

    10 If you falter in a time of trouble,
    how small is your strength!
    11 Rescue those being led away to death;
    hold back those staggering toward slaughter.
    12 If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,”
    does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?
    Does not he who guards your life know it?
    Will he not repay everyone according to what they have done?

  • It was Catholics who put the worst president we have known in our lifetime, even over Jimmy Carter, into office. How can we do this again by voting for someone who cannot win with his crazy conspiracy theories and his isolationist thinking?

    Are we doomed to repeat history because we ignore it? Does anyone here think that the US has done anything to make clearly religious extremists, BIGOTS, whose religion like it or not, gives them permission to kill the infidel…that be us…just for existing into assassins hell bent oh no, paradise bent to kill us all. The entire Western Civilization.

    I have never heard Judge Napolitano espouse the conspiracy theory that the Truthers espouse but regardless, they are crazy. Ron Paul is pro life, thank God, but he is not prolife if he thinks he can negotiate us to peace with these people. They are more prolific than us, because most Catholics do not practice a prolife mentality and they are not unwilling to die. All I can see is that we are not willing to do what our fathers did, we are willing to die for our freedom and that of our brothers and sisters.

    How said for people like my father and I am sure many of yours or your grandfathers and mothers who laid down their life. Or was Hitler more of an enemy than a Islamist extremists who insinuate themselves into our culture, take advantage of our education, and good heartedness until ready to blow themselves up for what? 70 Virgins….doesn’t that offend anyone?

    When I stand before Jesus, I will have to answer for voting for someone who may use techniques of war, IN war, that I don’t necessarily care for, however, I feel better being able to say that I voted for a lesser evil in order to end the reign of a decidely anti life, scoundrel who has lied to us about everything and is not only trying to control our birth and death but how, when and where we can practice our faith, in fact I would venture to say, Obama would like to replace our Christian faith with a secularist faith based upon the ideology of green. To be a steward of this gift of earth is our task but climate change and all that has attached itself to it is not about science it is about ideology and a way to replace Christ, expecially in the minds of kids, with mother earth.

    We need a pit bull to go against the obama machine, not someone who thinks, much like Carter did (and look what that got us) that we can negotiate or worse just stick our heads in the sand and pretend there is no other world out there…no enemy by us.

    I am so saddened that we may be the reason for another 4 years of hopey changey until the only change will be our Church muzzled and more of us blown up.

  • Hello Chris, May I offer a brief rebuttal from the Ron Paul side? Sir, you are completely mistaken or misguided when you refer to Ron Paul’s foreign policy as isolationist. I know the media says it all the time but it simply is not Dr. Paul’s view. Ron Paul has stated repeatedly that were a significant threat present itself he would deal with it swiftly, vigorously, and completely, and then he would come home. That to me, does not sound like a man who is weak on defense, but rather a man who is wise on war.

    Ron Paul’s foreign policy is non-interventionist. Ron Paul wants free trade and friendship with all nations. When Ahmadinejad made serious overtures at the U.N. recently, that he was ready to negotiate, Obama wanted none of it. War has been the game plan from day one.

    Here’s a clip from General Wesley Clark stating as much in no uncertain terms.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uswDmTjLog

    I could go into greater detail of course but if this clip doesn’t at least get you to look into what I’m saying a little deeper, any additional words on the topic would be meaningless.

    In regard to the evil horde of Muslim extremists eager to destroy us and our way of life. Sir, as someone who has shared tea and tobacco with Muslim men, who has done business with Persians (Iranians), Saudis, Yemenis, Lebanese etc. I have to tell you, I just don’t see it. My son who works in Naval Intelligence (no jokes please) doesn’t see it either and he is far more in the know than I am. I know these people personally. Most Muslims, Middle Easterners, Africans, what have you, they simply want to be left alone.

    Are there Muslim extremists? Absolutely. But there are Christian extremist, Hindu Extremists, every religion has it’s extremists. Here is something that so many people rarely ever think about. Of all the people in America who claim to be Christian, how many of them would you call fundamentalists, and out of the fundamentalists, how many would you label as extreme, and out of the extremists, how many are blowing up abortion clinics on a regular basis? I hope you are beginning to see my point. Islam is no different than Christianity, Muslims are no different than Christians or Mormons or any other group. Religious practice in the middle east is as cultural as religious practices everywhere else in the world. They are no more devoted to their faith and all that faith entails than the average “Christian”. Most Muslims don’t know the Koran any better than most “Christians” know their Bible’s.

    When we place sanctions on countries who have done us no harm, starving their children, devastating their economies and overall quality of life, when we threaten them with war and regime change, we create the very extremists that we fear.

    In your comment above you spoke of “our Christian faith”, I share that same faith. In my 20 plus years as a Christian, and a Christian who takes his faith perhaps a bit more seriously than some, though admittedly not as much as others, I have yet to discover this concept of Christ honoring preemptive war. If you can direct me to the appropriate scriptures supporting this position I will consider them with prayer. Until then, may I leave you with a verse from 2 Timothy,

    “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind’.

    God Bless

  • I see Ron Paul is way ahead in this poll. I do not believe it is true Catholics who usually view National Catholic Register voting for Paul. The paulbots find polls over the internet and tell all of their paulbot buddies to go that site and vote for Paul. To love thy neighbor means help those all over the world. That’s what America’s been doing since her birth, starting at Tripoli, and part of why she’s been so blessed.
    God Bless America.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY EVENING EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: FRIDAY MORNING EXTRA | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: FRIDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: FRIDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Archie,

    I too have sat and laughed and kibbitzed with may people of Middle Eastern background, including Muslims. Sufism is a lovely mystical version of Islam. Sufism was one man’s attempt to bring to Islam what we believe, that reason and faith are compatible and should work in cooperation. He was not successful because of the Koran’s religion and the pressure of the mainline groups, so it went the way of mysticism. But those who truly still adhere to it are lovely hearts. As a Middle Eastern Major in college, I have always had a love of the place, the people and the history. But I am not naive about their religion or their cultural ways. Are there extremists in all religions, heck yes, but how may certainly in this day and age blow up people of other religions for no reason. We have the nuts who go to military funerals and spew their hatred, but they don’t kill people, they don’t send their young children or mothers to die. The cool aid drinkers who think one or another of their prophets is Jesus incarnate or another Messiah tend to kill themselves rather than others. It is quite different and the difference come by the fact that we do not worship the same god…worshipping one god does not make it the same god. Their story is Abraham Isaac and Ishmael with the emphasis on Ismael. They cannot know God in any real way, a personal God for them is anathema. Jesus is just a prophet and not the last or with the last word.

    Have christians done bad things over time yes, and people always want to bring up the Crusades, but defending our own in the Holy Land was not necessarily doing wrong when we were asked in and it was a different age. We constantly judge our ancestors by our own 21st century values. We give everyone else a pass…loh that is their culture, we can’t comment or dislike it but when it comes to ourselves we say, how dare the Crusaders do this or that.

    Do not put Christian fundementalists in the same light with these people that is completely to twist the truth. If you are going to do comparisons, do them in this time and place. When was the last time CHristians savagely attacked any one of another religion without provocation, other than our religion/our God (to whom we are slaves remember that is the case for muslims) tells us it is what we should do?

    The Iranians are NOT going to negotiate. Iran is no different than STalin was or the Japanese even for their part back in the 30s and 40s. You are not dealing with honest people. Have you so soon forgotten Jimmy Carter’s debacle in that respect? While I have no use for Obama, he had to listen to HIlary and the people who know with whom we are dealing…zebras do not change their stripes.

    How about Obama’s tour of Mea Culpa at the beginning of his presidency, telling everyone how the US is to blame and we are sorry and we would just love to negotiate and work with you. Where did that get us? Perhaps that is why Obama stepped back a bit. He found out all he did was expose us to being considered weak and a target.

    I think Obama set out to wreck the country, period. All his ‘friends’ are out in th eopen communists, socialists and anarchists. He found out, we the people are in line with that and while most of his appointees drink the same cool aid, don’t think Hilary, does though I wouldn’t vote for her either. Like her or not, she is clearly working her tail off from the looks of her and she has here hands full.

    Can’t you see by the outcome of the so called “Arab Spring” that we are in for the biggist struggle of our lives. As soon as I saw the first country rise up, I began to pray, knowing full well it ws not going tobring a spring but a long winter of extremism.

    What does Ron Paul consider imminent danger? And I don’t want us to negotiate or give money to these people through the government. I am a believe not in redistribution of wealth, perhaps Distributionism but I don’t trust the government not to make that into socialism and communism as it is almost impossible for power not to corrupt. I believe in Subsidiarity whether it is here or abroad. When three planes are flown out to kill us for no reason other than we are who we are, we vote, we respect others’ religious rights, women’s rights…or we did before the feminist and gay rights movements and the cowtowing that the Obama administration is doing to their causes…that is a declaration of war. That you can’t pin point a country but must admit to a cultural enemy doesn’t change it. Makes it far more difficult and requires some not so typical tactics of war, but it still requires us to accept it for what it is and protect ourselves and our country.

    I do understand the culture and the religion. I don’t listen to the msm or anyone else on this one. I study history and I am tired of the tail wagging the dog in this country. Mostly I pray…and I would suggest we all do that rather than just listening to televisions and debates. I want a pit bull to go up against Obama and that isn’t Ron Paul and frankly it isn’t Ron Santorum though I admire him. It is Newt because he is knowledgeable and he has made our government work together before. One of the very few who have. He has the intelligence and the experience.

    If we were voting for a saint none of these people would deserve our vote. But we are not, we are voting for a man or woman who can reign in this government and it’s tenticles on both our money, our human rights and our religious rights to name the most important. We have ideologues on both sides and the only one who has ever been able to cut through that is Newt Gingrich. Like him or not, he converted and he was absolved ofhis sins. Who are we to second guess Christ. Is his personality great no, but this isn’t a personality contest. This is a contest for our country…is there a real monetary crisis coming…hell yes and no matter who gets in it will not be averted, perhaps mitigated but not averted.

    Let’s listen to history and to our God…let’s us pray for our country and that whomever we put into office, we will as a people put God back in the center of our lives and the life and laws of this country. That is where I stand.

  • Pingback: Character Assassination on Rick Santorum | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: Rick Santorum Friday Roundup | ThePulp.it
  • So nobody’s supposed to vote in this poll unless you’re a regular on this site? How is it fair to completely remove a candidate from the poll based on that? Seems pretty biased to me!

  • Josette,

    You don’t have to be a regular at TAC, but Spamming does not reflect the electorate.

  • Ron Paul 2012!

  • first of all, just because we believe in the message of Ron Paul does not make us dishonest, cheaters, or less valuable in the eyes of the Lord or the United States. we each get 1 vote and believe me, we don’t have to cheat to have enough voters to beat any of the other candidates. We are also willing to support him from our pockets too. he does not take money from Lobbyists, churches, Wall street or big Government supporters. He attends Church ever Sunday, has raised a good, god Fearing family, has great values for himself and his offspring. How can you not support a man who is truly a Christian, a Military Hero, and honest person and a true Statesman? I do not need the Catholic Church to tell me who to vote for, nor do I need them to tell me right from wrong….I have been led to Christ with no help from you or your pope…..or any of your lying, child molesting priests! so, kick us out of you poll that has now become useless for anything but glorifying your bias and closed minds! I am so glad that I was not allowed to join your church and raise my boys under the catholic doctrine! I am Happy as a Methodist thanks! In Jesus name, may your lies and bias be unveiled to your congregations!

  • “I do not need the Catholic Church to tell me who to vote for, nor do I need them to tell me right from wrong….I have been led to Christ with no help from you or your pope…..or any of your lying, child molesting priests! so, kick us out of you poll that has now become useless for anything but glorifying your bias and closed minds! I am so glad that I was not allowed to join your church and raise my boys under the catholic doctrine! I am Happy as a Methodist thanks! In Jesus name, may your lies and bias be unveiled to your congregations”

    Initially Sour Melody 00, I put your comment in the trash where the rantings of anti-Catholic bigots like yourself normally end up at this site. However, the sheer stupidity of coming to a Catholic website to urge support for a candidate, and while you are doing so spitting on the Catholic Faith, was so monumental that I had to share it with my fellow Catholics for their amusement. Thank you for the laugh that your bitterness, bile and bigotry produced.

  • Mel’s a typical paulbot [email protected] I had favorable feelings for Paul (he’s right on the Fed for the wrong resaons). I never thought libertarians were worth the powder it would take to shoot them.

    After Mel’s hate-filled tripe, Paul can go to Hell and so can his freaking son Rand.

    To ensure Paul never got elected; if, in some nightmarish scenario, Paul were nominated by the GOP, I’d vote for Obama. Then, I’d go to Confession because that would be a mortal sin.

  • Mel you black-hearted protestant murderer.

    Now, I remember why I always threw in when they passed the hat for the IRA, you rat.

  • I second Donald.

    I initially was going to trash your bigoted rant, but Donald did the right thing to show how vile your hate is to all the world.

  • “Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall be the children of God”

    Mathew 5:9

10 Responses to Evil Republicans Explained

  • I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. The Republicans gave up on 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10 at least 20 years ago.

    Now we’re having Romney forced down our throats. If he wins, it will be “Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.” If he loses, then the GOP apologists will blame people like me who voted third party for helping to elect Obama. But I’m not casting my vote next year against Obama. I’m casting it against statism. And the notion that the architect of RomneyCare will repeal Obamacare and restore freedom as the birthright of all Americans is pure fantasy.

  • Ya know, I used’ta travel through Brooklyn LIRR Sta. to get home from Wall Street. Onst, we had a hippie-type, long hair with a petition. Being in a charitable (Hey, we won!) mood, I engaged the nitwit in conversation. It was after the GOP had won the WH b/c Nader had split the commie vote. Even that dimwit had it singed in his pea-brain that you never allow the enemy to win b/c you don’t think the nominee is or is not @-enough.

    We need to soldier on. Once Romney is in and we have GOP majorities in both houses of Congress, we will take back our birthrights.

    BECAUSE if Obama wins, it is the end of America as we know it.

    It’s okay, Steve. It’s PK as long as you don’t vote for Obama again.

    Oh, and about Newt’s $$$ from FNMA. I have a list of all the gangsters who received $$$$ in FNMA pol graft, er, PAC that includes Obama, and a number of others you would not expect.

  • I have two words that can nullify every one of Bill Whittle’s facts:
    Hope & Change.

    Carry on.

  • “I just threw up in my mouth a little bit. The Republicans gave up on 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10 at least 20 years ago.”

    Melodramatic Steve, and completely untrue.

    “then the GOP apologists will blame people like me who voted third party for helping to elect Obama”.

    Nah, Steve, the vast likihood is that no third party candidate this round will amount to a Hill of beans in vote total. You will simply have cast your vote out of pique that better is not perfect, something that does not occur in politics. However, that is your right, and I have little love for the Weather-vane in any case if he is the Republican nominee. However, I do think he is far preferable to Obama and I will vote according to that belief.

  • 2. Is private racial discrimination okay?

    3. The judiciary usurping the power of Congress was the argument FDR used to end the Lochner era.

    6. No preferential option for the poor?

    8. Like the Southern Strategy?

    9. I agree that class warfare is undesirable, usually ineffective, and often disastrous but not necessary wrong.

  • 2. No, certainly in regard to race, which is why the Republican party endorsed civil rights acts calling for a banning of discrimation in commerce for decades prior to the about face of the Democrats on the issue.

    3. Even FDR couldn’t be wrong all the time RR.

    6. Certainly not when it comes to special privileges being bestowed by government.

    8. A myth: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html

    9. Fostering class hatred RR is every bit as despicable as fostering hatred on the basis of race or religion.

  • It is easier for a camel to pass to pass through the eye of a needle than for a…

    Class warfare!

  • Restrained Radicalism

    Discrimination (the “effects test”, quotas, affirmative action, set-asides) against white males is public and private policy.

    They can’t enact it as law. They appoint a judge/judges who order it, e.g., abortion.

    Obama must greatly prefer poor people. He’s creating millions of new ones.

    You get no charity points for confiscating someone else’s money to buy poor (many with HBO on only two color TV’s) peoples’ votes.

  • “It is easier for a camel to pass to pass through the eye of a needle than for a…”

    Christ never breathed a word RR that suggested that the poor should envy the rich or hate them. He enjoined on the rich a duty to help the poor. He enjoined on us all the necessity of not letting a desire for material goods stand in the way of loving God and loving our neighbor.

  • We need the rich. They attract great American entrepreneurs to the same business area who create competition, which transmits more value to consumers. Have you ever heard of Adam Smith?

Why Do Those Bitter Clingers Vote Republican?

Monday, November 21, AD 2011

 

 

Liberal elites frequently profess astonishment at why so many  middle class Americans vote Republican.  Thomas Frank in 2004 published a book, What’s The Matter With Kansas , in which he bemoaned the fact that his fellow Kansans, or former fellow Kansans I should say since he resides in Washington DC, did not share his love of the Party of the Jackass.  Lee Siegel at The Daily Beast has a brilliant column in which he explains the political facts of life to the Liberal elites in the form of a letter from Occupy Harvard to their parents:

The man you think is a “sucker” because he votes for Republican candidates who don’t seem to give a hoot about him will vote for them every time. He looks at you, the crowd of The-Fix-Is-Always-In, and he casts his lot with the crowd of wealth and initiative.

You see, Mom and Dad, they don’t lie about his prospects. They tell him that he has to sink or swim. They don’t disrespect his willpower by promising that government will make life easier for him. They tell him that they respect his individuality. They tell him straight out what you, the liberal elite, know to be true but will never say. They tell him that life in America is winner-take-all, and that they are the people who will let him keep what he has. They tell him that his religion, his wife’s capacity to reproduce, his children—whether they are “successful” or not—are his treasure. They tell him that they don’t care if he is a person of modest ambition, little sophistication, and humble means. What they value is his capacity to change his own life.

 

What you tell him is that he should put his life in your hands. Yet you scorn his religion. You mock his faith in the sacredness of conception. You deride his belief in family. You tell him that his love for hunting makes him a murderer, and that his terror at being economically displaced makes him a xenophobe and a racist. Then you emasculate his hope for the future by telling him that if his ship comes in—that dream of a ship that makes the grinding disappointment of daily life worth living through—you’ll help yourself to a big slice of it. And you expect him to believe your rhetoric about fairness and equality when, all the while, you are accusing him of gullibility in his politics and bad faith toward the least fortunate of his fellow citizens. When, all the while, you are living untouched by your own policies. When you are cushioned against life’s hardness, not by government, but by simply knowing other people in your class. You expect him to buy your talk about equitable distribution of wealth when you are sailing through tax loopholes off into the sunset. For this man, his emotions make all the rational sense in the world.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Why Do Those Bitter Clingers Vote Republican?

  • Brilliant!

    Thank God 52% of “we the people” persist as producers and taxpayers.

    In general, democrat constituencies, e.g., the OWS crowd are amoral, cretinous, immoral, indolent, languid, vulgar creatures who seem convinced that it is the government’s duty to provide for them.

    Last week, a gang of self-identified “patriotic” millionaires was in DC propagandizing (up-scale street threater?) to end evil tax-cuts-for-the-rich. A right-wing provocateur asked each one (and gave the IRS Form) voluntarily to pay additional monies. They all refused.

    I would have sent them to the nearest US Army Recruiting Station.

  • I especially love the reference to the “Party of the Jackass”. Perhaps the party’s new
    slogan should be “Always Braying, Always Obstinate, Always Sterile”.

  • I read the Daily Beast column. Eh. Seems like a strawman argument to me. Ooo, those lousy rich hypocrites making fun of your hard work and your unborn child! Boo!

    I haven’t read Thomas Frank’s book, but I’ve read other things he’s written, and in my opinion he can’t grapple with the fact that the Republican Party is socially populist and economically elitist, and the Democratic Party is socially elitist and economically populist. That’s not to judge whether either party’s policies are correct; it’s just an acknowledgement that a lot of people are split between their social and economic interests.

    Frank looks at Kansas and can’t figure out why people vote against their economic interests. Well, Frank, that depends first of all on whether you think they are voting against their economic interests. But more than that, the idea that people vote strictly according to their pocketbooks is ridiculous. It reminds me of a question that Charles Murray asked: if you passed away, would you rather your children be adopted by a rich couple with poor morals or a good couple who was just scraping by? I think most people would choose the latter.

    Anyway, sorry if I went off on a tangent there, but lately I’ve been getting equally frustrated by the Bill O’Reillys and the Chris Matthewses.

  • Actually Pinky, Chris “Tingle up my leg” Matthews is sounding fairly frustrated about Obama these days.

  • Regarding Oama’s re-election hopes:

    Bray for a miracle!

October TAC GOP Presidential Poll

Tuesday, October 11, AD 2011

Rick Perry has suffered in the secular polls due to his performance in the debates, Herman Cain has gained traction, Mitt Romney has remained stable and just received an endorsement from Chris Christie who himself has officially stated he will not run for president (this time around).  In addition both Sarah Palin and Thad McCotter have also announced they will not pursue the nomination, in all this, Rick Santorum has maintained a lead among TAC readers of all candidates.

Will Santorum continue his popularity among Catholics or not?

Here’s our latest poll so please vote after watching tonight’s GOP debate:

Continue reading...

29 Responses to October TAC GOP Presidential Poll

  • Santorum would help his case if he didn’t sound like a whiny jerk, because he’s an A+ on the substance. Perry helped himself tonight, and I think Cain hurt himself just a little. Newt’s still the most impressive guy on the stage, but I’m not sure he can overcome his baggage.

    As for the rest of the field – who cares?

  • Perry is old news. Maybe that’s supposed to be impressive in Texas but on the national stage, he’s no match.
    Cain has peaked. He bet the farm on 9-9-9 and Bachmann and Santorum took the wind out of that sail. Maybe he has other tricks but it’s a very difficult task to stay fresh.
    Newt is running for VP.
    Santorum has two problems. He always looks like he’s about to explode and the Google problem. It’s nearly impossible to shake off a negative first impression.
    None of this matters since Romney is the Republican nominee. At this point I can guarantee it. The more contested race is for running mate. Marco Rubio is the front-runner but there’s a long list of real possibilities.

  • because he’s an A+ on the substance.

    If he is not proposing a credible plan to balance the books, he is not A+ on substance. His career before politics was truncated and his executive experience is nil. Only three or four of these candidates have what might be adequate preparation for the job and two or three of them have serious issues over and above the usual nonsense on fiscal policy. The stage manager’s cane, please.

    None of this matters since Romney is the Republican nominee.

    What is the point of making statements like that?

    Marco Rubio is the front-runner but there’s a long list of real possibilities.

    There is no front-runner because there is no contest for this position.

  • What is the point of making statements like that?

    What is the point of making a statement like that?

    There is no front-runner because there is no contest for this position.

    There’s no popularly elected position of running mate but there certainly is a contest.

  • I didn’t watch the debate.

    Four more years of Obama and we’re finished. You need to prepare for it.

    Anyone had better beat the incompetent community agitator (pitting against each other haves vs. have-nots and foisting class envy and social unrest are not leadership) whose last best hope is a couple hundred unemployable hippies “occupying” Wall Street and his lying, lap dog media.

    Pray for the best. Prepare for the worst.

  • If you wish to beclown yourself by making declarative statements about things the answer to which you do not know, be my guest.

    The only ‘contest’ for the vice presidential slot goes on in the head of the nominee and the nominee will likely be unknown for another four or five months. Since most recent nominees have made choices apparently driven by idiosyncracy and short-term contingencies, you are not going to have a clue even if you know the nominee.

  • For me, Santorum is the best by far, and I can understand his behavior, he is hardly mentioned in any TV show (look O’Reilly), even when he present much substance in debates. And even during the debates, rarely he is called to the center of the discussion.

    Maybe, if he feels he is better positioned, he can show more calmness.

    Cain is out with his 999, he is trying to be VP, as well Bachmann, Paul, Huntsman. So, there are four candidates Romnoway, Perry (good candidate), Gingrich (carrying stones) and Santorum.

    Santorum 2012.

  • Who is Buddy Roemer, a NASCAR driver?

  • Just wondering with Cain’s 999 plan whether that includes a free topping : )

  • *This* is the cream of the GOP crop, eh? And against a badly-flawed, detached incumbent whose term has seen unemployment hover at 9+%?

    Astonishing. I’m reminded of this:

    http://tinyurl.com/4y47jg4

  • I’ll take Santorum ANY DAY OF MY LIFETIME over any GOP or Democratic candidates these past 30 years (with the exception being Ronald Reagan).

  • I am afraid that I am gravely dissatisfied with all the Republican candidates, although, except in the case of Ron Paul, I would vote for any of them over Obama. (In a Paul-Obama race I would write in Bob McDonnell.)

    1.Michele Bachman-Bad habit of making things up. Knowledge base that is broad and an inch deep. Poor presentation of herself when coolness and a calm head are needed from a candidate.

    2.Herman Cain-His 999 plan is rubbish and would lead to lower income individuals paying far more in tax than they do now. Personally an impressive man, he gives little indication of having thought deeply about most of the problems confronting the country. If the country is fed up enough with professional politicians however, he has a definite shot.

    3.Newt Gingrich-Just go away Newt. You aren’t going to be getting the nomination and you are wasting our time. More skeletons than a small town graveyard.

    4.John Huntsman-Would be surging to the lead if Democrats were Republicans. Wrong party.

    5.Ron Paul-Klaatu barada nikto!

    6.Rick Perry-An astonishingly bad candidate after so many elections! The speed with which he went from front-runner to pack trailer is truly amazing. If he is going to have a comeback he is giving no sign of it.

    7.Rick Santorum-Closest to my own political positions, Santorum is a lousy candidate. His 41% to 59% loss to Casey the Lesser in 2006 was stunning, since Casey was a pretty weak candidate. Pennsylvania was going to be tough for any Republican in 2006, but bad tactics by Santorum turned a tough race into a rout. Has a talent for making enemies within the party. All the Touhey supporters are nodding their heads.

    8.Romney-The weather-vane. Pro-abort and now pro-life. In favor of Romney care; opposed to Obamacare. Moderate to liberal governor of Massachusetts, and now a born again conservative. I have absolutely no trust in him. I also doubt if he has the fighting instinct for the 2012 race. The Left will be throwing every thing imaginable against the Republican nominee next year, and I doubt if Romney can stand up to it.

    Time to pray for a dark horse, although if the economy continues to tank, it may not matter and Obama may be dead meat in any case next November.

  • Huntsman keeps getting described as a moderate or a liberal, but this seems to be more over matters of style than substance. On policy he seems pretty conservative (note: this is not an endorsement of Huntsman).

  • Huntsman is a conservative trying to run as a moderate who went too far and is now perceived as a liberal. He forgot that he has to win the primaries first. He’ll make a great Secretary of State.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: FRIDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: FRIDAY LATE-MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Santorum (is that Latin for Saint?) is likely best on so-con issues, but his foreign policy is essentially a W redux, which is largely what got us in the mess we are currently in.

    Ron Paul looks crazy because he is the only sane person left in this country. That said, if you want to get elected, you need the crazies (i.e., the rest of the country) to vote you in and therefore must speak their language. Klaatu barada nikto, indeed.

  • Ron Paul looks crazy because he is the only sane person left in this country.

    Yes yes, he’s the only true patriot, liberty, constitution, blah blah blah. Meanwhile he’s hanging out with the 9/11 truthers, urging us to go back to the gold standard, and pretending that those craze moolahs would just love us if weren’t for those damned dirty Jews.

    If that’s sanity, I’m happy to be crazy.

  • Count me in, I’m happy to be crazy as well.

  • Pingback: FRIDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Gosh- dismissive comments – “lousy” “go away” about these good, intelligent, hardworking and very capable people doesn’t help the social or fiscal conservative cause. Pres. O’s team doesn’t need our help casting aspersions on our candidates. Santorum and Gingrich are my choices.

  • “O’s team doesn’t need our help casting aspersions on our candidates.”

    But we certainly do. In politics it does no good to ignore the flaws in the primaries only to have the adversary party rip into the flaws in the general election.

  • Please, please, please do not vote for Rick Santorum. The man is as thick as a plank. EG: Diane Sawyer said the presidenial candidates spend millions on their campaigns adfvertising and looked into their campaignt T shirts The 3 major candidates had shirts made in the USA. Then she showed Gingrichs’ and it was foreign made and when asked it took him a few minutes and he figured it out and replied he’d get USA made shirts….then Ron Paul, took him a few minutes to think about his foreign made shirts and he decided to dispose of them all immediately and get USA made ones. A llittle slow those two but they got the idea. When she asked Rick Santorum… his response…it’s hard to find anything made in the USA, and hard as she tried couldn’t get him to think about it and give the right answer. And he’s running for President, just a little scary!!
    As a Pennsylvanian who suffered him as senator, believe me, I know this is typical. Also, he has a bad habit of maintaining a position until (apparently) someone explains to him that he will get more votes for saying the opposite and then – VOLTE FACE! I know he is really, really pro-life but he is not presidential quality.

  • I love Herman Cain! He has to be our next president! None of the other candidates can even come close to the character he possesses, and I look forward to him getting the nomination…

  • Rasmussen: Cain 43, Obama 41

    Mitt Romney hardest hit.

    In all seriousness, it’s futile to trust in polls this far out. That being said, anybody voting for Mitt solely because he’s the most electable candidate should be forced to hand in their voter registration cards.

    Which, of course, is nothing more than a symbolic gesture since you generally don’t need them to vote.

  • Cain for President, Santorum VP

  • CAIN for president, John Huntsman vp

Last Call to Vote in GOP Presidential Poll for Catholics

Friday, August 19, AD 2011

The American Catholic (TAC) GOP Poll will be accepting votes until tonight, so if you haven’t voted, now is the time.

Thus far former Pennsylvania U.S. Senator Rick Santorum is still leading with 23% (up 1 point since Wednesday) of the vote followed by Texas Governor Rick Perry with 17% (down 2 points since Wednesday) of the vote.

Continue reading...