So far, I am unimpressed with the Republican candidates that have entered the Presidential race for 2008. I have looked at the popular candidates and I have found taints in all of them.
McCain is likable, and possiby electable (by virtue of the fact that so many Democrats like him), but he's just not Republican enough. He has gone against the party a few too many times. Maybe this means he thinks for himself, and not necessarily what the Republicans want him to think. That could be a good thing, except too often what he thinks is the way the Democrats think. That's scary.
Rudy is strong on crime and the war on Terrorism, and was a rock after the planes hit the towers, but he is soft on illegal immigration and too pro-choice. Many say he stands on his principles, which is a major knock against McCain, but I'm sorry. Standing for a mother's right to kill her baby is not a principle I want my Presidential candidate to stand on.
I like Newt Gingrich, but, like many others has suggested, I feel he carries with him too much baggage. The Democrats slime campaign against him when he was Speaker of the House, charges that were never proven, and probably completely false, has painted Gingrich as corrupt, and that is something that I feel he cannot overcome.
Mitt Romney seems like an excellent candidate, but let's be honest. He's a Mormon. Many people feel Mormonism is a cult, and that alone will prevent many Christian Conservatives from voting for him. I don't know of anything in the Mormon doctrine that would necessarily make him a bad President, but it's the "cult" thing that scares people off.
Some are attempting a "draft Condi" campaign but that, as I see it, is doomed from the start, mainly because she has insisted she has no intentions of running for President. I like her a lot, and I think if she ran, she might get a lot of crossover Democrat votes especially from women and minority voters. But she is pro-choice, and that is a main issue for me, personally.
Then there is my initial pick to run, Sam Brownback of Kansas. He is strong in his opposition to abortion, something I've already mentioned is important to me. But then he went and ruined it all by opposing President Bush's war strategy. I no longer support him.
For another look at the front runners and more information regarding them, check this post by Mark Levin out.
OK. So now you are all probably thinking that I don't like any of the GOP candidates for President in 2008. You would be wrong.
I like Duncan Hunter, Republican Congressman from California. Take a look at him and his qualifications here.
I agree with him on virtually every issue. I don't see a thing wrong with him. So far, there are apparently no skeletons in his closets, and his record reflects strong American Conservative Republican values. Of course, it's early yet. The only problem he has currently is lack of name recognition, but the election is still over a year and a half away, and in that time, I believe we can make him a household name with the right amount of grassroots support.
I don't know if my humble blog gets enough readers to make a difference, but if my readers research Hunter, and if they agree that he is an excellent choice for President, perhaps other blogs will join with me to create a groundswell of support to elect Duncan Hunter President of the United States in 2008.
60 comments:
Unfortunately, winning elections is not a purity test.
Think about the Dems last election. They would have won easily if Gephardt or Lieberman were the nominee, would have struggled in a close election if Kerry, Clark, or Edwards was the nominee, and would have lost big if Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton, Moseley-Braun, or other fool was the nominee.
The same applied in 2000. The Republicans would have won easily with McCain, would have had a close election with Bush, and would have been completely wiped out if they nominated Forbes, Bauer, Keyes, or Hatch.
Other factors matter besides purity in national elections-- personality, accomplishments, experience in crisis, appealing to moderates, fundraising, and so forth. Us running Duncan Hunter is the equivalent of the Dems running Kucinich-- a Congress-critter with no big accomplishments, who has a "putz" personality, who has no appeal to swing voters, and brings no intangibles to the table.
This is pouring cold water on the hopes of idealists, but if we want to win the next election, we'll nominate Giuliani or McCain, and if we want to risk a close one, we'll nominate Romney. Everything else is delusion. We'll get most of what we want with Giuliani-- killing terrorists, solid judges, sound economic policy, and a general law and order approach. Even though he is a moral degenerate, nominating him appears to be a no-brainer if creating conservative policy is our objective. McCain generally is all about McCain; Giuliani over the last ten years has been a loyal party guy, and you know what to expect in advance.
Respectfully, Jason, What makes you think Hunter cannot be elected? A "putz" personality? Where do you get that? No appeal? Remember, there is a lot of time before the elections. Plenty of time to let people know all about him. Would you rather have a GOP President who caves in to the Democrats or one with solid Conservative values? One who holds his finger in the wind, or one stands on his principles?
He CAN be elected, IF he gets the support he deserves. And so far, he deserves it.
Remember, Reagan wasn't percieved as electable the first time he threw his hat in the ring either. The result? We got Carter. The worst President in history, with the possible exception of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.
mark--
I've seen all of the candidates on television several times. Of them, Romney has the best mechanics-- he is articulate, persuasive, and likable. McCain looks world-weary lately and doesn't inspire confidence; Giuliani is always interesting and engaging, but needs to stop periodically opening his eyes really big when he looks into a camera, something that will be fixed. Hunter I find appears stodgy, broken-down, dull, and plodding. I'm not certain what the guy brings to the table, besides holding a hard conservative line on every issue.
Seriously, if that was all it took, we would just nominate you, mark! With enough grassroots support, we just might do it! But we both know it takes more than that.
Ha ha, Jason! I have way too many skeletons in my closet!
Hunter doesn't, as far as I know. And just as you say, Images can be fixed. I don't want a President who gets elected based on perceptions and image alone. I want one who represents the issues that are important to me.
Call me selfish. Give him a chance to show us what he can do before dismissing him.
Brownback and Hunter are too extreme for mainstream America.
Ya got nothin. Ya got no one.
Interesting that you like Newtie - a tree time divorce who prosecuted Clinton while having an adulterous affair with a staffer, whom he eventually dumped his second wife for. Clinton gets a bj, but stays with his wife, and you support impeachment. Newt has a full-blown affair, and is divorced twice, and he's presidential material to you guys.
Well, logic and consistency has never been a republican virtue.
Sorry - Newt is a two time divorce, on his 3rd marriage. Makes you wonder, that when he speaks of protecting traditional marriage and family and which marriage of his, he wants to protect.
Come on by and join in.
The media isn't going to help.
This is a grass roots thing.
http://duncanhunter.conservativebase.org/
Anon, I would be glad to come on by, but the link you supplied doesn't work. Actually it isn't a link, but I copied and pasted the address you provided and it didn't work. Try again, please.
Let's try this...
Hunter
Thanks, Anon. I have added that site to my blogroll and edited my post to include a link to it.
Mark, I think Rudy is probably the only one who has a chance of being elected. I prefer Duncan Hunter myself, but as you said, there's the name recognition thing. Rudy's record in New York is exemplary, but you're right about him not being strong enough on the abortion issue, nor is he strong enough against gun control. Having said that, we may be forced to vote for the lesser of two evils and I would sure vote for Rudy before I'd vote for Hillary or Obama!
Duncan Hunter would be my preference though. When I get a bit of time I'll do a post on him. He's fantastic, and you'll get no argument out of me on that point. I just don't believe he'll get the name recognition in time for the election. I hope I'm wrong!
So now the rightwingers are going to swallow their pride, and vote for someone who is pro-abortion, someone who is pro-gay, someone who placed the emergency command center in the World Trade Center, someone who sent 217 firemen up into the towers with non-working walkie talkies, so that they couldn't be recalled, someone who carried on a blatant affair with his mistress while in office. Someone who married his cousin.
This is what you guys say you're going to do. Pardon me, if this confirms the lack of credibility in rightwing thinking, and the crass hypocricy of rightwingers.
Thanks, Mark.
I'll be putting up a links section soon and will put you in there.
mudkitty--
I proudly call myself a hypocrite. At least in the sense the left uses the word.
Here's why.
Conservatives argue in a classical manner. We live in a contingent, hard, real world where you can't have things all ways. In such an environment, you do your best, realizing not only the inherent imperfection of politics, but of human beings themselves.
Collectivist-liberals, inspired by Marx and Freud, see all reasons as rationalizations. They don't really argue, but try to unmask things as conspiracies for the rich, or rationalizations covering up depraved impulses. As a result, "exposing" people has become the leftist tool of discourse, rather than squaring theories with evidence.
Hell, liberals are so cynical, they don't even feel good about their own politicians, from Kerry to Clinton. Most real-life conservatives would be comfortable with most of the candidates mark mentioned. Our debate is between the proper amount of "hypocrisy," or ideological slack, that is necessary to win most of our ends. The dream that you can get everything you want is utopian, and ultimately self-destructive to anyone, regardless of the ideology.
Oh Sweet Pete, how do you get stuck with Mudkitty? LMAO!
I like Duncan Hunter and all, but I was hoping to draft Frank Keating (Former Oklahoma Governor) to run, he has all the principals you like Mark. And is NO stanger to Terrorism, And I thought he and Michael Steele would be great on the ticket.
But from what I understand Frank isnt interested, so I will have to read up more on Duncan Hunter, I also like Huckabee.
Like you said it's still away's away, I think the Dems moved up the calendar though so we might have a nominee before we are even ready for one!
And we thought the 2000 election went haywire?
Cant wait to see this mess!
Name recognition? C'mon! Duncan is well known in our household. Everytime we go to the supermarket we never fail to buy one of his cake mixes. Belgian chocolate rules. 'nuf said.
Giuliani has a bigger tent & therefore more electable. I am not so strident in my conservatism that I would cede the election to a Hillary for the sake of purity of a conservative candidate.
Duncan Hunter is the candidate we have all yearned for. We should support him as much as we possibly can. He is articulate, solid on the issues and has a warm, convincing personality. He is real.
Mark,
The Barnyard doesn't seem to think Duncan Hunter has the abilty yet to gain the ticket lead, not on his credentials but he is unknown outside of a small conservative circle. He would make an awesome VP for any of the top tier to choose, rockribbed and tough as nails with a depth of policy knowledge that would be invaluable. He could also help bring the entire conservative movement under one ticket by solidifying the base under a Rudy or Mitt Romney.
Newt wants a high level Cabinet position where he can help set policy. Brownback, has gone soft on immigration, Tancredo, too single issue associated. John, Mitt and Rudy, while John has a good conservative voting record his name is tied to some really bad bills, Mitt, our man, is just getting his stride and can overcome the negative, Rudy, has very broad appeal and recognition. While pulling for Mitt in the primaries, we will fully support whoever the nominee is.
Just because a candidate doesn't have name recognition and is percieved as unelectable this far from the election, is a very poor reason not to back him and an even poorer reason to dismiss him as a viable candidate.
As I mentioned, Ronald Reagan was viewed as unelectable before the 1976 election, a mistake Republicans paid for when Carter was elected.
It is time for Republicans to unite behind a true Conservative. With the advances in technology now days, there is no reason we, as Bloggers, cannot crate a recognizable name and an electable candidate that will stand firm on Conservative values.
Saying he is unelectable at this point is tantamount to throwing in the towel and giving up before the fight even starts.
I like Duncan too, but he can't win.....He's a marginal candidate at best.
If we're going to go down this road we may as well put up Tancredo.
It's McCain or Rudy.......I'd rather have McCain than Rudy. Flaws and all.
It seems that some here are deciding as if the primaries begin tomorrow. If that were the case, I'd agree that Hunter hasn't a prayer. But think in terms of Reagan, particularly his re-election, and the Contract With America. It was solid and unapologetic conservative principles which carried the day and gave us a Republican majority for years until what? Until too many Republicans stopped acting in a conservative manner. So with so much time in advance of the primaries, now is the best time to begin educating the public (or at least those we know personally) about those that mirror those qualities we as conservatives look for. If Hunter can articulate conservative principles, and if his doing so is done in as public a way possible, he has time to enlighten people and get a conservative message across.
Now if Rudy's tough guy reputation garners the most attention, then he's my guy. Not because I'd be a hypocrite as some deep thinkers like mudkitty would say, but because I believe my country can't afford to have any of the Dem offerings elected to lead. I'd hate to vote for anyone who believes a woman has the right to murder her own child anytime anywhere, but any Dem is likely to support that anyhow so on that issue, it's a wash. For the rest of the issues, Rudy supports more things I like than any Dem. With any luck, if any of the top rightwing prospects get the nomination, they'd have the brains to pick someone like Hunter as a running mate.
Liam,
Thanks for the response at "My Two Cents Worth". I've returned volley and the ball is in your court.
he's just not Republican enough. He has gone against the party a few too many times. Maybe this means he thinks for himself, and not necessarily what the Republicans want him to think.
Mark, I'm upset at McCain for such things as "the gang of 14". I don't want to vote for him in the primaries; but if it's either him or Hillary in the general election, I'd go for McCain. He and Giuliani are moderates, whereas the Democrats are running far to the left, liberal candidates in Edwards, Hillary, and Obama. These three have a very liberal voting record.
Despite the impression McCain has left us with, his voting record indicates that he actually votes with Republicans about 80-89% of the time (I believe it's closer to the 89 percentile, but can't remember exactly).
In regards to Condi being pro-choice (although, she is a non-issue, since she won't be running), I've heard this charge by conservatives; but I've heard that this is a misrepresentation as to her actual stance. Does anyone know for certain?
I have opinions on Duncan Hunter and Giuliani, but my typing fingers have had enough for one night.
I like Duncan Hunter, although I doubt his ability to win the top slot on the Republican Ticket...
I also like Rudy. I know that there are a lot of people who would disagree with me, I would actually prefer that Abortion remain legal, but that no one ever chose that particular "choice" for their own Moral reasons. That seems to me to be the way to promote the most personal Freedom. So on that count, I have no problem with Rudy.
My problems with him come in when we consider the fact that he tends to tread on the Second Ammendment some. (Fear the Government that fears an armed populace.)
McCain I will never vote for.
NO MATTER WHAT.
He put his name on an open-handed slap at our Constitutionally Guaranteed Freedom of Political Speech, the McCain-Finegold Act, usurped Presidential authority on the Judicial Nominee thing with the "Gang of Seven" stunt, and has sided with the Democrats for his own personal political reasons far too often for my tastes.
That behaviour CANNOT be rewarded.
If the Republican Party is stupid enough to nominate him for the top of our ticket in 2008, I will sit the Election out.
I would vote for Newt, Rudy, Condi, or Duncan Hunter.
Or for some other hard-line Conservative yet to be named.
Unless the nominee is McCain, I will vote straight Republican Ticket, no matter who it is, because anyone besides McCain would be preferable to Hillary or Gore.
The Republican Party needs to get back to its roots. The party was founded because the Whigs went wonky on slavery. Now, Republicans have gone wonky on abortion. A pro-abortion politician should not even be allowed into the party, much less be a candidate for office. The Republicans have become the Democrats of the 60s -- sans racism, Jim Crow, segregation, lynch law and all those other inconvenient truths. And the Democrats have become the Marxist/Socialist Party.
The hard truth is that it's time for conservatives to form a new party that is free of the corruption and compromises that have made our two-party system a grim joke. These are dangerous times to lose the White House to the Democrats, but an election or two would have to be lost in order to inject virtue, integrity and determination back into our political system.
Not holding my breath.
THE Nightmare Scenario for all Conservatives would be Rudy as the Republican Nominee, and a Pro-Life Third-Party Candidate who would split the Republican Base, handing the Election to the Democrat Candidate...
Remember Ross Perot... Without whom we would have NEVER had a President Bill Clinton...
If the great masses of Americans that vote in elections had even a faint idea of the principles behind Christianity, Capitalism, Democracy, Representative republics, American History, ethics, logic, and NCAA recruiting rules, Klingon grammer, etc., slugs like the Clintons couldn't get elected for dogcatcher.
Anyone who supports mass murder of babies is loathsome to me unless they have a written excuse, like severe mental retardation or a binding contract with Lucifer...
Dudes and Dudettes!
I'm really surprised that Mike Huckabee was mentioned only once in this most excellent discussion. I agree with Mark - that the front-runner for the GOP in the Spring of next year will very likely NOT be one of the front-runners today. Mark's analysis of each candidate is sound IMHO.
I think most of you will be surprised at the gains Huckabee will make as this campaign heats up.
This guy pastored a very successful Baptist Church for many years, spent 10 years as a conservative governor opposing a fiercely entrenched Democratic legislature determined to dominate him, and has showed great leadership on many issues...including the Katrina aftermath. His compassion shows in both his actions and his speech.
Don't rule him out...as it seems many of you have done.
I still think he has a couple of minor things to overcome, but I think he'll grow in national popularity in the next year or so!
test, chickens.
Rudy, John, Rudy,John, while Mitt sits comfortably in the darkhorse seat quietly raising tons of money. Mitt Romney's campaign will be the best run, smoothest operation ever, not a dollar wasted and he will have lots of them to spend.
McCain is a great American hero, a poor Senator and lousy Republican, Rudy is tough as nails politically, Mitt Romney, ideas and fiscal leadership.
RUDY has my VOTE In a time of National Disaster we needed a man with enough guts to take the lead and move this country forward, and dispite the fact that Washington DC sits 2 hours away from NYC, where WERE the Dems or Rep's during 911 not in New York that is for sure. Sad thing that Rudy was not in NOLA (New Orleans LA) during Katrina, if he was makes ya wonder if the good people of that city would still be spead out over the country, or back in the comfort of their homes. In the real world abortion issues either pro or con will never change Roe v Wade, that is a sad fact no matter what side of the coin you want. We are a Country in need of a LEADER, who will make some logic out of the mess in Iraq, who cares really if you can get an abortion at will, how about the thousands of our Troops that are being slaughtered in a War zone that has been that way since Jesus and will be after we have the good judgment to pull out and get home. And as far a Newt, like my grandmom use to say regrding divorced men "yes he is a HUSBAND is was everyone's husband"
Mark, I've read this comment thread and all of the comments make sense (with the exception of Mudkitty's of course). I really think that Jason H. Bowden's comment stands out though. It's exactly right. We conservatives are realists and realize that sometimes in order to get what we want we have to make compromises. I don't believe the left understands the meaning of the word.
I wish Jason ran a blog!
Thanks, Gayle. Yes, I agree. Jason does need his own blog.
I won't compromise before the Republican convention. I will support Duncan Hunter until he is no longer a candidate. That means if the Republicans select someone besides him to run for president, I will support the Republican nominee. But not until then. As long as Hunter has a chance, he is my man.
When the elction gets here, whether Hunter is on the ballot or not, I will support whatever Republican runs for President. In my opinion, the worst Republican is still better than the best Democrat.
Still I think Conservatives have the best candidate in Duncan Hunter and I call on all Conservatives to get behind him. That is the only way he can achieve the name recognition he needs to win.
By the way, if you google "Duncan Hunter", it returns over 1,050,000 hits. Hardly an unknown.
"...the worst Republican is still better than the best Democrat." Can't argue with you there, Mark!
Perhaps Duncan can get the name recognition he needs. Like you say, it's stupid to throw in the towel without giving it a chance. I'm really worried though that we will need swing votes in order to win, and if we run a strong conservative that we won't pick up the swing votes we need. But I really like Hunter and would be ecstatic to have him win in 08! :)
Rudy was the guy who insisted the the city's Emergency Command Center be located at the WTC, when people told him that was idiotic. Rudy was the man who said it was ok to send 217 now dead firefighters up into the Towers with non-functioning communication devices (in a deal brokered by Rudy and his cronies) knowing that they had been malfuntioning, all of them, so that the firefighters couldn't be recalled.
Rudy is the guy who carried on a flagrant affair with his mistress, whom he left his wife for. Rudy is the guy who supports gay rights and abortion.
Rudy is the guy in business with Bernie Kerrik.
Rudy is the guy who's first marriage was to his first cousin.
Yeah, Rudy is the Republican guy alright.
Not impressed with your Google of Duncan Hunter & his 1,050,000 returns, Mark. I Yahoo'd Duncan Hines & got 1,980,000 returns. What's that tell ya about Hunter, hmm? A cake mix is beating him.
anonymous,
Please take your time and consider that we have to try and figure out what the hell you're trying to say.
But as to this:
"... who cares really if you can get an abortion at will, how about the thousands of our Troops that are being slaughtered in a War zone..."
keep in mind that there are far more babies being slaughtered in America than there are troops in Iraq. Celebrities like to list reasons to be ashamed for our country. Nothing is more shameful than an attitude that puts abortion as some second tier or backburner issue. Nothing speaks more poorly of our national character.
Well said Marshall Art.
Marshall nothing shows ignorance like a personal attack, that being said
:for years people have tried and failed to reverse Roe v Wade including the woman who brought the suit, so how can a Politician's view on the issue be of interest other than a sideline? Also, our Nation's attitude speaks for itself when we load troops onto planes and ship them off to fight a Civil War which we have no business being involved in.
Hi Mark,
good post and I think it does show that the field is still wide open. I think the problem in our camp is that so many are looking for a messiah like candidate, and in this day and age, there are so few... well, there are not any. But you see what I'm trying to say. They are looking for the perfect candidate, and one just doesn't exist...
I like Duncan Hunter a lot but a lot of what Jason says is true. The biggest problem Hunter has is he hasn't done anything in the past 10 years to make the right connections or put himself in an electable position. Its not impossible for him to be our candidate but unlikely.
As for McCain I don't know anyone that finds him likeable and you know how much I despise him.
I do have major issues with Rudy being pro-choice because it is a HUGE deal for me. But at this stage of the game he would be my first pick with either Newt or Hunter as the VP. Having a strong conservative as the VP would help calm some of our fears on what Giuliani lacks.
Bottom line many are urging caution about picking a candidate this early. A wise man who I asked for advice on this brought this up and then Karl Rove wrote about it today and Rush brought it up today on his show. Bottom line, 2008 is a ways away and anything can happen between now and then. But hold onto your seats because I anticipate it to be a bumpy ride.
Also, I am an Evangelical, pro-life Christian and I do not like Brownback or Huckabee so I don't think they have a prayer. Brownback really shot himself in the foot like you said when he didn't support the troop surge.
As for Romney I have no problem with him being a mormon even though I do consider mormonism to be a cult. It just means he would be a moral person. What I have a problem with is his flip-flopping on moral issues.
Also, I'm planning on doing conservative profiles on some of the different candidates so I will link to this one when I do mine on Duncan Hunter.
Mark,
I've posted on the perfect candidate over at my site...
http://fleshisasgrass.blogspot.com/
Enjoy...
anonymous,
Ignorance? I wasn't attacking you, I was critiquing your writing style. It's not easy to decipher. Lighten up. Constructive criticism is a good thing. Ignorance indeed.
Whether our adventure in Iraq is a good idea or bad is a legitimate debate. I happen to believe the intentions behind our actions are good ones and the goals worthy and noble. For all who feel as I do, our national character is not tarnished. For those who feel as you do, I hope someday you all open your eyes and see the big picture.
As for the abortion debate, it is especially shameful to feel there is nothing worth debating where the lives of millions of unborn human beings are concerned. Those who feel it boils down to a woman's "choice" haven't had the courtesy of providing scientific proof to validate their claims that one becomes a person worthy of the right to life at some arbitrary point beyond fertilization. But you may be right. Perhaps we'll never change the hearts and minds of those who so greatly covet self-gratification that they will forever justify in the cheapest terms their abdication of responsibility. That you don't see that as a sorry stain on our national character says volumes about you.
Is abortion the defining issue of the next election? Not while the war on terror rages on. But that doesn't mean it lacks importance. We prioritize the issues as we always do and the WOT demands our attention. As a nation, I think we're capable of mult-tasking and dealing with other things at the same time. Don't you?
Excuse me, Mark, while I address a couple of people on this thread: First of all, Anonymous, your first comment was quite difficult to decipher. I read it twice and still have no clue what you are talking about. I don't believe Marshall Art was attacking you. He was simply stating a fact.
Your second comment is a bit more understandable. It is clear that you don't believe we should be in Iraq. That's really an old argument. The fact is, we are in Iraq, like it or not. Our troops are there and many of them do not believe those who are whining back home are really supporting them because the whining and bitching does nothing but make their efforts more difficult. What is it that is so difficult for the left to understand? In other words, "together we stand, divided we fall!" Is that what the left truly wants?
Marshall Art, you are exactly right about our national shame regarding the murder of innocent babies. To the left the babies being murdered don't count. Only the wants and imagined needs of the mothers are important. Rudy Giuliani is too soft on this issue. But the good news is that abortions are becoming more difficult in this country because of doctors refusing to perform them and nurses unwilling to work in the slaughter houses.
Mark, I hate compromising my principles by voting for a man who is week on the abortion issue and strong on gun control, but at least Rudy is strong on national defense. If it should come to a choice of Rudy or Hillary, then I will be forced to vote for Rudy. I will not withhold my vote to punish the GOP. Many well-intentioned conservatives did that during the last election, a strategy that was more like cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Look at what we wound up with!
Compromising principles is par for the course if your a republican.
I'm for Tancredo, but, unlike Huunter's supporters, I don't dare to dream. I'd vote for either one with enthusiasm, but I'll never get the chance. No cheating, now: the last person to go directly from the House of Representative to the White house was_____________?
mudkitty--
At least Republicans have principles to compromise, unlike Democrats. I'll cast a few more pearls before swine below.
La Rochefoucauld once wrote that hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue. Think why Winston Churchill thought Courage was the most important virtue. It is present in individuals who know they aren't saints, but are willing to expose themselves to the charge of being hypocrites. In other words, the virtuous person is more concerned about doing good than having an unsullied reputation.
It is better to be falsely called a hypocrite than to be truly accused of moral cowardice.
How's the Kucinich campaign going, by the way?
Logically, I am not one of Jerry Falwell's legion of Rethuglican hired guns. Kitty and I know the truth that the neo-cons can't handle!
Methinks, Smirk caused hurricane Katrina by silencing the agnostic minorities in Managua. What next? Will the prolifers come to repress me for being a Democrat? Will me and Kitty's pagan friends now be enslaved just because they're Native Americans?
Since 1985, 52,473 Democratic insurgents have been oppressed in Amerikkka. The Justice Department can seduce Muslim unspoiled woodlands in Michigan, all in the name of "gun owners' rights"? As I've said before, that makes it okay, then.
Sheesh, you need to watch something other than Faux News!
macro-whatever,
Sheesh! You need to share that bitchin' weed!
Marshall, Macroglossius has just repeated some of the rantings from the autorantic "Virtual Moonbat" rant generator. I had it on my old blog, before blogger forced me to change over, but when I switched I lost it. I have found it again and restored it to my sidebar. You can find the same kind of nonsense there. All you have to do is click on the "rant" button.
Marshall I don't disagree that ABORTION is a stain on our society as a whole, but the truth is what can one do about it? They have tried in vain to have it reversed and the Pro Choice has a louder voice and deeper pockets for Lobbyist, in DC that is how it works.
Gail thank you for pointing out that we are in Iraq I don't know what I was thinking, you are so right I guess I do need to get OVER IT. Can you please enlighten me how I am to get over my 22 year old cousin who came home from there in a body bag? Or how about the hospital I visit weekly in Fl where they send the wounded, you know the amputees the near dead and those who will spend years in rehab? I wonder if that was clear?
anonymous,
Just as with any noble cause, the answer lies in our resolve. On the personal level, we can continue to put abortion and the behavior that leads to it in it's proper context. This means continually confirming for those with whom we debate the issue that abortion IS the taking of a life and that womens' choice does NOT include that. It means bringing back shame for those who would engage in promiscuous activity without regard to the consequences and responsibilities that go with it. Years ago, not so many really, girls who put out had special names to describe them and at the time, they were none to keen to be known by such names. Now, it's almost a badge of honor for some. Don't talk about double standards, please. The fairer sex simply has the ultimate responsibility because only she can get pregnant. Males, of course, need to be reminded of things like honor and discipline. When God was forced into the closet, there was nothing to replace Him. Virtue was scoffed and shame ignored. In our personal lives, we can reverse the trend.
On the national level, the people we elect to lead and govern have a direct impact on the legislative side of things. Vote for those who see the Constitution for what it truly is, not some "living document" to be twisted to allow for anything.
We can also give support to those organizations that are on the front lines in the fight against the practice. The main thing is that just because the battle is hard, we can't just lay down and give it up, particularly where lives are at stake.
Anon, I am truly sorry that your cousin was one of many brave soldiers to sacrifice their lives in the cause of freedom.
It is indeed a shame that there are casualties in war. I would prefer that no one suffered.
I am not pro-war as much as I am anti-defeat. In fact, I hate war. I wish there was some other way to fight terrorism, but sometimes war is the last and only alternative. I believe this war is exactly that kind of war. It is a necessary evil.
Let me ask you some questions, though:
Do you think your cousin died in vain? Is his or her sacrifice worth America and Iraq's freedom? Would you rather have endless more 9/11 type attacks against innocent American civilians?
You seem to think that we can fight a bloodless war against terror. What do you think America should do instead of fighting a war?
By the way, Anon. Gayle never said "get over it." She expressed the reality that we are in fact engaged in a war, whether it is a "just" war or not.
I know Gayle would not be that callous, and I resent that you would imply that of her.
Mark my cousins death was a tragic loss for us personally and for our country as a whole, do I consider his loss in vain, no indeed I do not, nor did I consider it a loss when my brother died in Vietnam or my Grandparents a loss In Aucshwitz. We are a proud Military family who have certainly showed that we will stand up for our Country, but this War as in Vietnam seems to be more a Civil War, and like Vietnam we seem to be drawn in year after year with NO REAL PLAN ahead to bring our troops home. That is my concern. As for Gayle I can "whine and bitch" all I like, and yes her comment was callous. I do hope she never has to claim a loved one brought home in a body bag, that alone gives me the right to "whine and bitch" all I like my family has paid the ultimate price for that privilege.
anon,
Your losses are indeed tragic. I say this with the utmost sincerity and I hope you believe me when I say it. However, we cannot allow our grief for our losses, nor our fear of risk for potential losses be the sole governing factor of our decisions. We could never defend ourselves, never achieve our goals, never be the last best hope for the world, never maintain our freedom and liberty if we only focussed on losses. This fight is righteous and our cause is just. To lose would bring about greater hardship. Argue for better leaders and strategists if you must. That's a worthy argument. But I cannot conceive of any war that had a "REAL PLAN ahead to bring our troops home." Win the war as quickly as possible and the troops come home. There's no better way.
God Bless your fallen.
Post a Comment