Well, the horse I jumped on three days ago when Duncan Hunter dropped out has now quit on me. It's a hostile world out there for conservative horses, these days.
With Fred Thompson gone, there isn't a single GOP candidate I'd trust with my tax dollars OR my freedom.
Giuliani's a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual liberal.
McCain's an open-border, free-speech robbin' "moderate"...which means he's a liberal.
Romney's a suspiciously recent convert on the pro-life position who gave the farm away on homosexual "marriage," and doesn't share my foundational beliefs about Jesus Christ, to boot.
Ron Paul? Great in most areas of constitutional application, but sounds like a MoveOn.org ad on the Iraq War. Failure on this front is certain to result in more dead Americans on our home soil, so I just can't go there. Besides, Paul is more of a Libertarian than a Republican.
And Huckabee? Don't get me started on Huckabee. Yeah, he's a Christian, but I could name some unbelievers who have a more Christian worldview that does Huckabee. You'd expect a Christian to know better than to espouse some of the liberal drivel Huckabee spouts. Suffice to say that the label "pro-life liberal" fits him pretty well.
At this point, it's a toss-up as to which one of these guys would show the least disrespect for the constitution and the moral fiber of the country.
Maybe I'll just take a break from the presidential campaign until the primary is over. Lord knows my to-do list isn't getting any shorter.
Technorati tags: election, Fred Thompson, Huckabee
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Fred Thompson Drops Out
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
"McCain's an open-border, free-speech robbin' "moderate"...which means he's a liberal."
Moderate = liberal. Oh you crazy conservatives just crack me up.
And it's possible to be both a Christian AND a liberal. Nothing wrong with that. God loves all of His children. :)
Take a close look at all the "moderate" politicians, the "moderate" positions, and the positions taken by "moderate" politicians. They're liberal.
And yes, it is possible to be both a Christian and a liberal. But not possible to hold a Biblical worldview and be a liberal, because a Biblical worldview is in contradiction to being pro-abortion, condoning homosexual behavior, turning a blind eye to lawbreaking, undermining morality and virtue in society, the welfare state, and so on.
Jesus said that if we truly loved him, we'd keep his commandments. We don't do a very good job of that when we accept a liberal worldview over what the Bible says is right.
You and I are in the same boat. No true conservatives left in the race... only imposters that affix the word "Republican" to their name. I'll probably suck it up and vote for the snake Romney.
Although McCain and Guliani are both truly moderates, I get what you're saying about their conservative stances. Seriously, if they are going to side with liberals on many of the issues, why not just vote for a "full time" liberal. At least they're good at keeping a consistent stance in line with their parties.
With respect to Ron Paul you said: "Failure on this front is certain to result in more dead Americans on our home soil, so I just can't go there."
Seriously now. You've bought into this fear of attack. They hit us with all that they had. Bill Clinton failed us when he chose to play golf instead of making the decision to take out Bin Laden.
I'm a former police officer and infantryman. Ron Paul advocates going after the individuals who perpetrated the attacks on us, NOT going into foreign nations to impose democracy on them. It's why one newspaper put it this way "Ron Paul v. Bin Laden".
Ron Paul is the only true conservative. After all, he was only one of four delegates to support his nomination in 1976 and the only candidate on the stage to support him in 1980. Ron Paul follows in the tradition of Reagan and Taft but you never hear him mention it now do you.
In fact, Ron Paul resigned from the Republican party in protest of Reagan getting soft with the Bushes.
And you "Anonymous", go ahead and suck it up.
Any of you give up a little of your constitution for a little bit of status quo, a little bit of your freedom for a false sense of security---well, you all deserve neither.
I'm curious to know why you wouldn't think that Ron Paul is a conservative. He is conservative from both social and fiscal standpoints. As for his stance on foreign relations, he just doesn't believe that we should be intervening militarily in other countries under the guise of spreading democracy. He does believe in a strong national defense and effective intelligence. He voted to go after Osama bin Laden but was against going into Iraq because it had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11.
Going with Romney is a good choice. I think he was just pretending to be a liberal in Massachusetts. He has his head on straight now.
"If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."
-Ron Reagon
He also pulled us out of Lebonon when the marine baracks were bombed and hundreds of soldiers died. He said we should not involve ourselves in middle eastern politics because of the irrational nature of the region.
I understand that we need to defend our coutry when it is attacks, but we destroyed the military of the Taliban and Saddam easily. Iraq's military is the one that we are funding are rebuilding with our tax dollars. Why? They hate us. Why are we giving them weapons? We destroyed them and now lets come home. We already won.
You write:
"Ron Paul? Great in most areas of constitutional application, but sounds like a MoveOn.org ad on the Iraq War. Failure on this front is certain to result in more dead Americans on our home soil . . ."
I humbly suggest that even his take on the Iraqi War is more Constitutional and wise than than many are giving him credit for. Nobody but politicians really seem to believe that more dead Americans will result from less American attacks overseas. The logic simply doesn't work.
If you were a terrorist organization hellbent on American destruction would you hang out in Iraq and Afghanistan? -- where the Americans had the majority of their firepower and intelligence operations? or would you quietly move your base of operations somewhere safe (Saudi Arabia or Pakistan for instance) and plan another attack on US soil?
Our empire-building in the MidEast is stretching us thin and stirring up more anti-Americanism, not less. The war is obviously not about protecting America, although some [not me] would argue it *is* about protecting vital American interests.
I would give Paul (including his crazy-seeming foreign policy) a second look, if for no other reason than the ones you've already stated in your article.
Ron Paul of Virginia: You stated "Ron Paul advocates going after the individuals who perpetrated the attacks on us, NOT going into foreign nations to impose democracy on them."
"Imposing democracy" (if you could do such a thing as impose freedom on someone) is only a by-product of the invasion. The invasion was necessary for a number of reasons, including that Iraq was firing on our jets almost daily, they were continuing to pursue WMDs, and were funding terrorism, if not the 911 conspiracy, then certainly funding terrorists attacking Israel.
We had to deal with Iraq before we could deal with Iran, which is the biggest supporter of terrorism in the world. It's a pity that so many in our own country, not to mention the world, are so short-sighted and politically motivated that they'd rather undermine our efforts to build a stable Iraq and leave us free to deal with Iran.
Post a Comment