"This Is News from WORLD Magazine": Afghan war end date set, NAACP comes out for gay marriage - black pastors push back 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Big win allows Romney to focus more on Obama
Declaring that he is ready to bring an end to the Obama era, Mitt Romney relished his easy win in the Florida primary Tuesday by quickly dismissing his Republican rivals and tearing into the White House’s current occupant.
“Three years ago this week, a newly elected President Obama faced the American people and said that if he couldn’t turn the economy around in three years, he’d be looking at a one-term proposition,” Romney reminded his supporters Tuesday night in Tampa. “We’re here to collect.”
The former Massachusetts governor, relieved to put behind him the momentum-halting loss he suffered in the South Carolina primary, tried to sound presidential in his Florida victory speech. His focus on President Barack Obama recalled Romney’s original primary strategy to look past the rest of the GOP field. But his goal to appear to rise above the primary fray got sidetracked by Newt Gingrich’s surprise South Carolina win.
For the past week Romney put aside most of his anti-Obama rhetoric and primarily attacked the rest of Republican field. That paid off, particularly in two Florida debates during which Romney delivered a series of verbal blows to Gingrich.
Romney defeated Gingrich by 14 percentage points, 46 percent to 32 percent. Rick Santorum, with 13 percent, ran a distant third, while Ron Paul received 7 percent of the vote.
Significantly, Romney made a statement in Florida by winning more votes than Gingrich and Santorum combined. During his victory speech, Romney tried to begin to put behind the intraparty rivalry.
“As this primary unfolds, our opponents in the other party have been watching,” he said. “They like to comfort themselves with the thought that a competitive campaign will leave us divided and weak. But I’ve got some news for them: A competitive primary does not divide us; it prepares us.” … MORE >>
back to top160 Comments to “Big win allows Romney to focus more on Obama”
Mitt Obama or Barack Romney. Doesn’t really matter which of the two we get. Won’t make much difference.
Report comment to moderator
You’re kidding, right?
Report comment to moderator
1 – Yes it will.
With Obama, you get Keynesian stimulus, implementation of Obamacare, higher taxes, no hope for cost-saving reform of Medicare and Social Security (without which our fiscal situation is completely doomed), more government programs, more costly job-choking regulations, and worst of all, more liberal judges appointed the federal courts and the Supreme Court. That last point affects not only abortion, but other things on the leftist social agenda down the road, such as secularization of the public square with religious views treated differently, gay marriage sweepingly legalized by judicial fiat, curtailing the rights of gay-marriage opponents, and possibly threatening parental rights and homeschooling rights as well. On abortion, more Obama appointments to the Court could turn the court significantly leftward if he gets to replace Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy is the moderate swing vote right now; he upheld the ban against partial birth abortion, so that could possibly be reversed and partial-birth abortion could return due to Obama appointees. Obama might also get to replace another liberal Justice or two (Breyer and/or Ginsburg), so that could be an opportunity missed for a conservative to replace a liberal.
Romney is not my top choice (Santorum is). But Romney has a clear history of turning things around. Managing decline, failure, and stagnation are unknown concepts to Mitt Romney. He is a hard worker. He will appoint conservative judges. He has vast economic experience and knows how to get the economy going. He supports reform of Social Security and Medicare similar to what Paul Ryan has proposed; those are the absolute biggest steps necessary to fixing our fiscal situation. He wants to cut government, not simply slow its growth.
This is an extremely important election and beating Obama is not an option. It is a must.
Report comment to moderator
Romney has a much better chance to beat Obama than Gingrich, as he has much less personal baggage. Gingrich is right that it is unlikely that another bland centrist like Dole or McCain will lose to Obama who will make mincemeat of Romney should he attempt to fudge such issues as spending and tough foreign policy.
Romney has proven that he is much better organized and a better personality than Gingrich. He now has to develop a sharper policy stance and learn how to state it with passion and clarity. Otherwise, we will face another disastrous four years of Obama who by the end of his first-term will have racked up and incredible five $trillion of debt and badly weakened America’s foreign policy.
Matt Y above is right, those who claim that they would never vote for Romney ought to reflect on the probability that the next president will likely appoint two Supreme Court justices.
Report comment to moderator
…those who claim that they would never vote for Romney ought to reflect on the probability that the next president will likely appoint two Supreme Court justices.
A man who supports the growing power of the Executive branch, has no problem mandating health insurance, and whose stance on abortion is purely political, will not appoint justices who represent my viewpoint anyway.
If we’re not going to change the direction the train’s been traveling for the past few decades, then the matter of which political party has the distinction of being head engineer is of no great importance to me.
Report comment to moderator
I am feeling more optimistic about Romney each day. He proved he can give some hard punches and also take a few. He is certainly a step up from McCain. In 2008, Romney was considered the conservative choice (along with Mr. Huckabee) over McCain.
Report comment to moderator
This is the beginning of Romney’s closing argument, where he tries to regain his aura of inevitability. Gingrich will need to come up with a strategy for remaining viable over the month of February, where he is not expected to win any primaries or caucuses, anddesperate robocalls about Romney trying to deprive Holocaust survivors of kosher food probably won’t cut it. Santorum will also have to see if he can gain any momentum based on Gingrich’s defeat. Ron Paul effectively bypassed Florida, but one wonders if getting just 7 percent of the vote there — his first single-digit showing of 2008 — will have any impact on his caucus state supporters.
There are some chinks in Romney’s armor. The strong combined Gingrich-Santorum showing in the Panhandle suggests Romney will continue to have problems in the South. Gingrich also carried voters who cared most about abortion, suggesting concerns remain about Romney’s pro-life credentials.
______________________
I support the opinion above but I would have used “Asian-American” for the record
Report comment to moderator
I think it is safe now to concede that South Carolina was Speaker G’s High-water mark, his “Gettysburg” if you will.
Report comment to moderator
Did I miss something? I thought Romney won the Florida primary last night, not the nomination.
There are four caucus states next week; Paul will probably pick up delegates in all of them.
Romney will win Michigan’s winner-take-all on the 28th.
Super Tuesday will have a mix of caucus, proportional and winner-take-all contests. All four remaining candidates could gain delegates.
If Romney changes his focus to Obama now, it’s too early. The nomination process isn’t over yet.
Report comment to moderator
From the Times: Just the facts. It’s terrible for our Democracy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/us/politics/campaign-finance-reports-show-super-pac-donors.html
Rich Patrons Are Major Source of Romney’s Cash
By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and MICHAEL LUO
Close to 60 corporations and wealthy individuals gave checks of $100,000 or more to a “super PAC” supporting Mitt Romney in the months leading up to the Iowa caucuses, according to documents released on Tuesday, underwriting a $17 million blitz of advertising that has swamped his Republican rivals in the early primary states.
The filings to the Federal Election Commission, the first detailed look at a crucial source of support for Mr. Romney, showed his ability to win substantial backing from a small number of his party’s most influential and wealthy patrons, each contributing to the super PAC far more than the $2,500 check each could legally write to his campaign.
All told, the group, Restore Our Future, raised about $18 million from just 200 donors in the second half of 2011.
Millions of dollars came from financial industry executives, including Mr. Romney’s former colleagues at Bain Capital, who contributed a total of $750,000; senior executives at Goldman Sachs, who contributed $385,000; and some of the most prominent and politically active Republicans in the hedge fund world, three of whom gave $1 million each: Robert Mercer of Renaissance Technologies; Paul Singer of Elliott Management, and Julian Robertson of Tiger Management.
Harlan Crow, the Texas construction magnate, gave $300,000 personally and through his company. William Koch, whose brothers Charles and David are among the country’s most prominent backers of conservative causes, gave $1 million personally or through Oxbow Carbon, the energy company he founded.
Members of the Walton family, founders of the Walmart chain, gave over $200,000, while Bob Perry — a wealthy home builder who has long been the top patron of Mr. Romney’s erstwhile rival, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas — chipped in $500,000 in early December…
Then there’s Mr Adelson and Newt.
What happens when one of these folks decides to contribute $500,000,000?
Somebody please defend this without sticking your tongue out at the other side. Yes, they do it too. It’s nuts and very very dangerous.
Report comment to moderator
5 – Romney will appoint justices in the mold of Scalia/Thomas/Alito/Roberts. If those aren’t your type, then there are none of your type on the Court and I don’t know where you’d find any.
Back around 1990, there was a Mormon woman who wanted an abortion. Romney, then a Mormon church leader, worked hard to try to stop her. In 1983, he urged another woman to give up her baby for adoption (rather than have an abortion) or risk excommunication.
Even if you think Romney’s stance on abortion is purely political, he can’t back away from it – it would be political suicide to betray his many conservative supporters who put their trust in him on this issue.
Report comment to moderator
Matt Y. (3): … Romney has a clear history of turning things around.
Frank: Most notably, his political positions.
Report comment to moderator
Well Now we have
Romney 2 States
Newt 1 state
R.S. 1 State
and poor little RP stuck at 0
Report comment to moderator
Buckeye (6): I am feeling more optimistic about Romney each day. … He is certainly a step up from McCain. In 2008, Romney was considered the conservative choice (along with Mr. Huckabee) over McCain.
Frank: Here are McCain’s criticisms of Romney back in 2007-08.
How abso-flippin’-lutely hilarious that McCain endorses Willard now. (Maybe he’s thinking “veep”?)
You folks keep voting for politics as usual, you’ll keep getting politics as usual.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, whatever Roy. I think your needle’s stuck.
You know it ain’t about states, but about delegates, don’t you?
Report comment to moderator
Romney or Obama
The healthcare plan will move forward.
Report comment to moderator
He who wins the States wins most of the delegates….But hey poor RP supports need to find some hope in a man that ideas on drugs, same sex marriage, with drawing from the world is being rejected.
Report comment to moderator
Matt, “beating Obama” is not my goal in voting. I am not in charge of the results of the election. My purpose in voting is to cast my ballot for the best candidate. The results are God’s.
Report comment to moderator
Exactamundo NW JULIANA 18
It just gets SO tiring voting for the least worst candidate.
We didn’t want to vote for McCain the last time, but the alternative was…???
So we HASH it and REHASH it…
And worry about it.
HEY! If we don’t worry, who will. God isn’t worried.
Report comment to moderator
NWJ – Your comment #18 is thought provoking.
Sincere questions:
Would it be an equally valid purpose to vote most wisely?
Is the best candidate the one with the most Biblical convictions, or the one most able to effectively advance Biblical values?
Is it valid to ask God to overturn unGodly rulers and yet vote in such a way that contributes to their victories?
How does God expect His followers to participate in achieving His Sovereign results?
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, at 10, check out the LA Times article, Obama campaign team courts wealthy donors including:
Reporting from Chicago — President Obama’s reelection team has launched an invigorated effort to draw money from wealthy donors, buttressing the campaign against a potential decline in contributions from the everyday supporters who helped fuel his massive take in 2008.
A new program called Presidential Partners asks supporters to commit $75,800 to the Obama Victory Fund, a joint project of the campaign and the Democratic National Committee
Like Romney, Obama is no slouch at milking wealthy donors. Super-rich folks including George Soros, Warren Buffet, et al, salivate to fill his coffers.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t get the “anything but Obama” approach, which just rehashes the “anything but a Dem” approach of the last few decades. Like there’s some great accomplishment to point to with that?
Republican presidents and their appointees:
W Bush: Roberts, Alito
H W Bush: Thomas, Souter (retired)
Reagan: Scalia, Kennedy, O’Connor (retired)
Ford: Stevens
Look up Nixon’s appointees. Then look up a court case called Roe v. Wade.
‘Zat the best we could do? It’s not that impressive, guys. The list certainly doesn’t do anything to mitigate Frank in Spokane’s point that you get what keep voting for. Ron Paul’s Constitutional/states-rights approach would do far, far more to effect the political shift conservatives (profess to) desire.
Report comment to moderator
Juliana, on the economy and healthcare very little will differ if we elect Obama or Romney. The only real differences I can count on is whether the man in the White House is backing continued subsidies for oil companies making record profits, and the administration of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. If you think taxpayer money (your money) should be handed over to oil companies on the pretext of keeping gas prices low…or you just don’t want a group of federal employees making sure that banks will not sell you (and risk your savings and retirement) financial products they know to be unsound…then I guess Romney is your guy.
The financial policies conservatives like to rib Obama for are done deals. What is Romney going to do about the auto-bail out, but try to take credit 4 years from now if GM and Chreysler are still in business?
The Healthcare law is similarly a done deal. You could find alternatives to the health insurance mandate (which Romney implemented in MA), but imaging the confusion, cost, and likelihood for real economic and patient harm if you told a health care industry already in he midst of changing it’s business model from one where they sell health products numerically to one where they get paid for good results that it’s time to switch course again and go back to the old methods. Imagine telling them they have to restructure again, but without any of the grants and deals they were relying on to make their first restructure happen (like for record digitization). Chaos. That and pure added cost and reduced patient care.
That and you need to face that their is no political will to go back to a period where children can be denied care for preexisting conditions, or where a child born with a hole in his heart could exhaust his “lifetime limit” in the first 6 months of life, or a woman could be charged more for health insurance because of her gender! You’re kidding yourself if you think we’re going back there again. And that means you need to find a way to pay for additional expenses–like the mandate (a Republican idea in the 90’s–when Newt was in charge of the party!).
So no, the economic policies you would like to see enacted will not come under Romney nor anyone else. Their is a new status qup and we are not going back…
Given that, I refuse to vote for Mitt Romney. I’m not going to trade in the foreign policy success of our current administration for someone as shiftless, underhanded, robotic, awkward, and weird as Mitt Romney!
Report comment to moderator
Romney will appoint whoever he feels best suits his political needs! If he thinks he needs to up his approval among Evangelicals, he’ll appoint one. But that’s no assurance that you will get decisions from the bench that you agree with. Frankly, we need a few more Kennedy’s and O’Connor’s on the bench anyway.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy,
Ain’t no “poor” about it.
I consider it a privilege to support a man like Ron Paul.
(Speaking of “poor,” it took me three read-throughs to understand your post. An English Grammar 101 at your local community college would serve you well, my friend.)
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul is an entertainer. He knew what was in those newsletters. He’s an act.
Report comment to moderator
Many of Ron Paul’s critics—which include some posters to these comment threads as well as some World columnists—argue a vote for Paul is a wasted a vote and only accommodates more Obama extremism. And many of those same critics also declare we should not place our trust in men (politicians) but God for the welfare of our country. These seem almost contradictory sentiments. Why would the sky be falling if we failed to vote simply on the basis of our guy having the best chance to win? I think that if they trust in God, these critics should interact with Ron Paul on his ideas and relinquish the fear that a vote for him is wasted.
Report comment to moderator
If the newsletter thing is the worst about Paul–not saying it’s true and not arguing it’s the worst about him–it’s nothing as bad as the worst of any other candidate, D or R. But he’s not an act, unless all other candidates are, which may be the case…but he’s not anyway.
Report comment to moderator
George W. Bush was a big-government ‘R’ but he appointed Roberts and Alito. The latter only after getting severe pressure to w/draw the Meyers nomination. The point being that even a moderate or big-government ‘R’ can be pressured to appoint a good Justice. Not so with a ‘D’. Take a look at the record: Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito all appointed by ‘R’s. Who have the ‘D’s appointed in the last two decades? Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. In sum, while the ‘R’s have appointed a few duds (Souter comes to mind), the chance of getting a five-vote majority of conservative judges in the next four years is substantial if Romney wins, but non-existent if Obama wins a second term. This has huge implications for the future of our country, and more particularly, for the future viability of Roe v. Wade.
Report comment to moderator
Redwal: Obamacare is one of Obama’s most vulnerable issues. If Romney is elected, he will allow states to opt out on Day One, and there’s plenty of political will to repeal it.
Some of Romney’s attempts to distinguish between Obamacare and Romneycare are contrived, but he’s never advocated for the federal government to pass Romneycare. I support Santorum partly because of Romneycare, but I have little doubt that Romney will try to repeal Obamacare.
The health insurance rates are going up significantly for the company that I work for. I don’t have the company’s letter with me at the moment but I believe it increased by something like 44%. This new law caused our insurance costs to blow past projections.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy: Correct, and conservative activists have learned their lesson from Souter and O’Connor. Presidents will be more wary about appointing some unknown judge than they were in the past.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Matt. And another thing to think about which is just as important: Israel and Iran. BHO is perhaps the most anti-Israel president we’ve had in recent memory. That bodes poorly for America herself. The best thing for America is to elect a pro-Israel president. This dynamic is particularly accentuated in view of the upcoming confrontation with Iran. Will America abandon her only real mideast ally, and forfeit divine blessings in the process? Romney has said his first foreign visit will be to Israel. Perhaps that’s a political ploy, but if he follows through with that, it will be a strong message to Iran that we are standing with Israel, and will not sit idly by and let her get nuked.
Report comment to moderator
[Conservative?]Presidents will be more wary about appointing some unknown judge than they were in the past.
So NOW they’ve learned their lesson, huh? Do we think Romney is more different, or more the same as those CINO congressmen we ushered into office two years ago?
Report comment to moderator
If voting our value convictions is THE priority, regardless of electability, then we could all support our preferred person (Paul, Limbaugh, Piper, Perry, Graham, etc.) and simply say that if only enough people supported them they would win.
My personal solution is that I vote my value convictions in the primary and pragmatically in the main.
Report comment to moderator
Do we think Romney is more different, or more the same as those CINO congressmen we ushered into office two years ago?
What do you mean? I don’t see them as CINOs.
Report comment to moderator
Neil Evans: In my opinion, that approach over the last 30 or so years hasn’t gotten us much, e.g., George H W, and W., and largely ineffective lawmakers. We might have spoken more effectively had we kept to principles through the whole process. Not that we Christians should be preoccupied with what “might” have been, nor with what we fear “might” happen.
Matt Y.: What conservative shift or proposed law(s) do you point to to demonstrate sincerity of conservative conviction in R congressmen?
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy
Please cite the specific policies that Israel objects to and what the Administration has responded to with respect to such objections. And explain how a “conservative” policy would serve America’s interests better. While you are at, detailing the difference between George W. Bush’s Israel policy and Barack Obama’s would likely be instructive.
Please also check the history books and have a look at the George HW Bush policies — his Secretary of State did significnatly push Israel on a number of issues.
Please also detail your issues with Iran policy and how the USG could be more succesful without touching off yet another war in the region.
Finally, should Romney be elected and make his first trip to Israel he will be snubbing our largest trading partner and the country with which we have the longest unprotected border – Canada. U.S. Presidents traditionally visit Canada first.
Report comment to moderator
Neil:
Would it be an equally valid purpose to vote most wisely?
I believe voting for the best candidate to be the wisest vote. [Ron Paul]
Is the best candidate the one with the most Biblical convictions, or the one most able to effectively advance Biblical values?
The best candidate for the top position in the our federal government is the one that would run the government closest to the principles of the Constitution of the United States. [Ron Paul]
Is it valid to ask God to overturn unGodly rulers and yet vote in such a way that contributes to their victories?
God allows whoever He will to lead our country. I trust His decision. Hopefully, it’s [Ron Paul].
How does God expect His followers to participate in achieving His Sovereign results?
By voting for who they believe to be the best candidate, but trusting that the results are up to Him.
Report comment to moderator
Sails: I specifically asked if anybody wanted to defend this phenomenon by any means other than pointing at the other guy.
Put up, or agree with me that it is profoundly anti-democratic, no matter who does it.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy (32): BHO is perhaps the most anti-Israel president we’ve had in recent memory. That bodes poorly for America herself. … Will America abandon her only real mideast ally, and forfeit divine blessings in the process?
Frank: So you’d base foreign policy on a particular (to say nothing of peculiar, historically speaking) interpretation of Scripture?
You think that God will bless America if we support contemporary Israel, and curse us if we don’t? And neither nation has to actually “kiss the son” (Psalm 2)?
The Scriptures make it quite clear that the contemporary state of Israel is not whom God had in mind when He gave His promises to Abraham in Genesis 12.
The promises are not by blood or nationality — never have been.
The promises are by faith in Jesus Messiah.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy,
And pursuant to CoyoteBlue’s line of questioning at (37):
Who was being more “pro-Israel” after their 1980 attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor:
The Reagan administration, who (along with the United Nations) censured Israel for the attack?
Or Congressman Ron Paul, who said that what Israel felt she needed to do for her national defense was her business, and not ours?
Report comment to moderator
Ditto #9. I am tired of all teh focus on the first few states. There are 46 states to go, and the winner needs 1500 or so delegates. What does Romney have now, 200 or so at most? Long way to go folks.
And don’t pay any attention to the results in Missouri next Tuesday. Because the national GOP told Missouri the delegates would not count in the February primary, the state party decided to hold a caucus in March when the delegates wold be accepted. So, for those of us in Missouri, do we vote next Tuesday so that the candidates know what tp expect from the March caucus?
Report comment to moderator
Frank, don’t kid yourself about modern Israel that presently governs a land that the Jewish people may well regard as a God given ancient homeland.
You are rather too much swayed by Ron Paul’s isolationism that effectively abandons Israel to the brutality of Iranian and Saudi Arabian politics. Even if one is not Biblically sophisticated, at the hard level of real-politics Israel is a valuable American ally who through its scientific technological, intelligence, and military capabilities is of immense importance to vital American interests.
Please don’t come back with the Ron Paul inanity that he is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist.
Report comment to moderator
We get what we vote for. We have seen the “opposition” and it is us. I increasingly identify with those who have permanently left this website because of the politics. And it’s only Febuary.
Report comment to moderator
FebRuary – I know.
Report comment to moderator
I might add to 43 that Romney’s position on Israel is as follows:
Romney requested the Arab states to stop providing weapons and financial support to Hezbollah and Hamas and instead to put pressure on the Palestinians to “drop terrorism and recognize Israel’s right to exist.”
Mitt Romney strongly supports the security wall that divides Israel from the West Bank.
Ron Paul and Obama would effectively abandon Israel. Mitt Romney would protect it with American strength; the difference between night and day.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Louise, at 44, if you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen with the other wimps.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Neil #34 – exactly right, and well articluated. In the general election, it will be a choice between two, and only two. Any third-party candidate will be marginal. Thus, it is only common sense to vote for the better of the two (or, if you prefer, the lesser of two evils).
Report comment to moderator
Sails
RP views are baased in the 1930. I watch the Miltiary Channel an they had a show called WWII in Color and they were talking about the 20’s and 30’s that lead up to WWII and RP Views were very on display.
Report comment to moderator
Frank #40
“The promises are not by blood or nationality — never have been.”
By literal translation the promises are, and most often have been by blood, nationality, and by geography.
“The promises are by faith in Jesus Messiah.”
If only by faith in Jesus then the promised LAND belongs to Christians?
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul and Obama would effectively abandon Israel.
—
You can add South Korea and Tiwanii (I sorry I did not spell that right) to the list of Nations that RP would abandon.
Report comment to moderator
With Obama, you get Keynesian stimulus,
We got that with Bush Jr. as well. Why would Romney behave differently? He’s getting economic advice from Greg Mankiw, who also advised Bush Jr.
implementation of Obamacare…
And Romney is the guy who’s going to tear it down? How’s the president going to do that as opposed to, say, congress or the courts?
higher taxes…
Taxes under Obama have hit 50 year lows. Know why? Keynesian stimulus in the form of temporary tax cuts and tax holidays.
no hope for cost-saving reform of Medicare and Social Security
The flip side of this is that President Romney is less likely to implement cost-saving reform (read: down-sizing) of the U.S. defense sector.
more government programs…
You mean like NCLB? Medicare Part D? Dept. of Homeland Security? Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives?
more costly job-choking regulations
Flip side to this is that President Romney is less likely to implement environment-saving regulations in favor of deferring to concerns over jobs and corporate interests.
Report comment to moderator
@46 Romney requested the Arab states to stop providing weapons and financial support to Hezbollah and Hamas…
lol. Ain’t that sweet. We arm Arab states so they have weapons which we can then “request” them to desist from putting in the hands of Israel’s enemies. That’s the counterproductive activity that passes for sophisticated real world politics.
Report comment to moderator
BG: He’s getting economic advice from Greg Mankiw, who also advised Bush Jr.
Mankiw has made it clear on his website that he opposes Obama’s economic “stimulus ” plans, as well as his five $trillion dollar deficits projected through the end of his first term.
Mankiw is in fact an excellent economist whom Romney has wisely chosen as an advisor.
Report comment to moderator
<[I]t is only common sense to vote for the better of the two [major party candidates] (or, if you prefer, the lesser of two evils).
Can anyone point to Biblical examples of this kind of thinking–this “common sense,” or support for “lesser of two evils”? My guess is that’s a hard task, but I could be wrong.
But it’s an easy task to show Biblical examples of the opposite.
Report comment to moderator
Debra, I doubt whether Romney will continue to provide foreign aid to those Arab states including Saudia Arabia who oppose American interests.
Romney is a realist who is quite capable of making hard-headed decisions in favor of American interests. Private equity investors are among the hardest headed folk in the world. Unlike the naive Ron Paul, he understands the reality of the Pax Americana, as well as the enmity of most established Arab states.
Report comment to moderator
I doubt Romney is going to go against the Republicans in the House who just approved the sale of 29.4 billion in sophisticated weaponry to Saudi Arabia. And more to UAE. He certainly shows no sign of disapproval.
Report comment to moderator
Most of those weapon are be sold do to Iran trying to cause troubel.
Report comment to moderator
sorry should read
Most of those weapon are be sold, do to Iran trying to cause trouble.
Report comment to moderator
Well that clarifies it!
Report comment to moderator
And yet Romney has to ‘request’ Saudi not to arm Israel’s enemies with the arms that we’ve sold them. Seems awfully counterproductive to me. Of course I’m not connected with the Wall St crowd that makes money on these kind of deals. ;–)
Report comment to moderator
Debra – I Have never heard about the Saudi’s arming Israel’s enemies… when he made that statement, my question to myself is who are they arming?
Report comment to moderator
Neil Evans (51): By literal translation the promises are, and most often have been by blood, nationality, and by geography.
Frank: 1. A few examples, please?
2. Are you suggesting that Jews and/or Israelis are the descendants of Abraham, rather than Christians?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, according to the statement, Hezbollah and Hamas.
Report comment to moderator
Pax Americana does not exist. We are at and have been at war for quite a while, thus there is definitely no peace.
Sails, Debra is quite correct. The only candidate that wants to stop arming Israel’s enemies is Ron Paul, who is also the only candidate calling for ending our isolationist practices toward Cuba. That would go a long way to discredit Castro’s ability to blame all bad things on Cuba on the USA. I would like to elect someone who would end our subsidizing the national defense of socialist European, totalitarian Middle Eastern, and kleptomaniac African nations. It would be great to just use National Defense spending to just defend the USA.
Coyote, Canada was also the first nation the US invaded. We had not even finished our revolutionary war and we tried to conquer it. We would try a second time 36 years later, and fail yet again. I am amazed they put up with us after that.
Macrutabaga, it is good to here from you again. There is no support that I am aware of in the Bible for going for the lesser of two evils. All I know is that in the service…one must always choose the lesser of two weevils.
Ron Paul and Israel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nmgdO-mink
My Israeli friends want the US and Israel to trade more, since right now everything costs at least twice as much compared to the US.
Report comment to moderator
By the way, I will go so far as to make the claim that Ron Paul is the most pro-Israel presidential candidate we have ever had since Truman.
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/high-tide-and-turn/2012/jan/29/ron-paul-and-israel-question/
That article sums up why I believe so quite well.
And a reminder, every administration, for the past few decades, has supported the land for peace deals, and other anti-Israeli attempts to make peace, Democrat and Republican alike. Maybe those who claim to support Israel’s interests should consider someone who actually does support letting Israel pursue her own interests and not use international pressure against Israel.
Report comment to moderator
re: 56
You are right that there are not many democratic votes in the Bible. But Jesus did admonish His followers to be worldly wise in financial affairs. That implies a pragmatic discernment. And it is clearly possible to submit to governing authorities while praying for their change.
Jesus supported paying the Temple tax to a corrupt religious system. To pay the tax was less of an evil than to offend the judgmental observers.
To vote for the lesser of two evils in order to slow down the advance of the worst is not the same as support for lesser evil.
It seems to me that to stand by and let everyone else choose which of two undesirable options prevails is unwarranted dependence on the sovereignty of God. It would be different if we did not live in a country where God has sovereignly given us the right to vote.
Report comment to moderator
Rom,
LOL — The Canadian Foreign Ministry Building acutally has a mosaic of Canada’s defeat of U.S. forces. They seem to have gotten over the early history.
Sails
Saudi Arabia is a bitter enemy of Iran. And it still has a large amount of oil. I’d be shocked if a Republican or Democratic Administration trashed the relationship by refusing to sell arms.
Pastor Roy
President Obama has repeatedly stated that he will not abandon Israel. Aid levels remain the same. The commitment remains the same. Israeli leaders (even Netanyhu, sp?) know this. But they do like to sprinkle doubt into the minds of the evangelical community so as to bolster their support.
Report comment to moderator
Rom 116: “Pax Americana”does not exist.”
Not really, since WW II, America has been the main force for peace in the world., mainly due to the projection of its great power. The reality is that peace is made through wise, forceful use of power. Without such power, the normal state of affairs is a brutal anarchy, notwithstanding thr sentimental bleatings of both Christian and secular moralists.
Report comment to moderator
Rom 116: “Pax Americana”does not exist.”
Not really, since WW II, America has been the main force for peace in the world., mainly due to the projection of its great power. The reality is that peace is made through wise, forceful use of power. Without such power, the normal state of affairs is a brutal anarchy, notwithstanding thr sentimental bleatings of both Christian and secular moralists.
Report comment to moderator
Debra – Here the problem Iran is the ones arming Hezbollah and Hamas, not the Kingdom. The reason Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas are bitter enimes of the Saudi’s.
Report comment to moderator
President Obama has repeatedly stated that he will not abandon Israel..
-
That the problem Mr. Obama says one thing, but his actions do not line up with his words.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, then someone should give Romney a clue, because Iran is not an Arab state.
Report comment to moderator
Rom116 – RP with drawing from the world would leave Israel open to attacks… AN RP has been clear he would not defend other nations.
Report comment to moderator
I agree Debra.
Report comment to moderator
Frank, I am confident that you are familiar with the differing views regarding the relationship of Israel and the Church. There are some who see Israel and the Church as the same, ignoring both the fact that the Jews considered themselves blood descendents of Abraham and the NT describes the Church as the spiritual descendents of Abraham.
At any rate this is a complicated discussion and not pertinent to this thread.
Report comment to moderator
Mac 56 – Can anyone point to Biblical examples of … support for “lesser of two evils”?
Judges ch. 11. When Jephthah swore to sacrifice the first thing that came out of his house on return from defeating the Ammonites, and his daughter came out of the house, he was faced with a choice between two evils: sacrifice his daughter, or break his vow. He chose the greater of the two evils (human sacrifice). His choice has been roundly criticized by most commentators, Jewish and Christian alike.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jephthah
To be sure, the vow was made rashly, but at the moment of choice, he was faced with two evils, one of which was lesser than the other. To choose the greater of two evils is indeed a sin.
Report comment to moderator
Rahab was praised for hiding the Israelite spies, although that involved deceit. For her situation, lying was the lesser of two evils.
Report comment to moderator
Buddy,
“It’s the economy, stupid.” I think voters’ priority is probably jobs, especially this year. You may not support that, but I was responding to NW Juliana, so I used a conservative argument for Romney. Any Republican, including Paul and Huntsman (weren’t you considering him?), would be less likely to implement environmentalist-favored regulations.
I’m assuming Obama, in his second term, will try to address the deficit by raising taxes. That doesn’t work as a long-term solution; entitlements are exploding at a rate that will outstrip even proposals like the liberal alternative to Bowles-Simpson (it was proposed by a Rep. Jan Schakowsky-something or other), but I’m guessing that’s what he’ll try.
Romney needs Congress to pass a repeal of Obamacare, of course; a Republican Congress should be able to do so. Romney also plans to issue an executive order allowing states to opt out of Obamacare.
Defense cuts don’t save the budget. You could eliminate the whole defense budget and still have a large deficit.
Bush didn’t run on entitlement reform and cutting the size of government; he ran on “compassionate conservatism.” Romney isn’t a libertarian like Ron Paul, but reducing government has been much more central to his campaign than it was for Bush.
If Mankiw is a sort of Keynesian, he’s still no liberal: he opposed Obama’s stimulus package, supports free markets, trade, and less regulation. See Wikipedia:
Mankiw has expressed skepticism about a trillion dollar spending package in the face of the global financial and economic crisis. He has vigorously criticized Vice-President Joseph Biden for suggesting there was complete unanimity of support among economists for a stimulus package.
…
In defending the course [that Mankiw teaches at Harvard], Amity Shlaes, senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations wrote in Bloomberg, “Ec 10, though still Keynes-flavored, does feature intellectual variety relative to the rest of Harvard’s curriculum. The course’s message of free markets and trade, and less-regulated prices, rings at odds with the ideology on offer in many Harvard courses labeled ‘history,’ ’sociology’ or ‘government.’”
That sounds like the opposite of, say, Paul Krugman.
Mankiw isn’t hard-right, that’s true; he’s considered gently right of center in the business community. So is Glenn Hubbard, another prominent Romney advisor. Both are widely respected both right and left.
Report comment to moderator
FWIW, Saudi Arabia has been one of the biggest funders of Hamas. Selling weapons to ANY Arab state makes no sense whatsoever UNLESS you are simply profiteering without regard to the welfare of our friend Israel.
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp504.htm
Report comment to moderator
Mankiw is in fact an excellent economist whom Romney has wisely chosen as an advisor.
I like Mankiw and think he’s a smart guy. For instance, here he is defending Ben Bernanke against criticisms of his performance. Basically Mankiw is thoughtful and more moderate than is acceptable in today’s Republican party. Because of that, I’m skeptical that a Mankiw-advised President Romney (elected in 2008) would eschewed stimulus completely in light of the state of the economy at the beginning of his presidency.
Report comment to moderator
Debra – This is the first I have heard of Saudi Arabia been one of the biggest funders of Hamas…
I know Iran, The Muslim Brotherhood / now Egypt, Sryia but not the Saudi’s.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass – Mankiw and Hubbard have projected that Romney’s plan will produce 4% economic growth. Romney doesn’t include increases in spending in his plan. Given that Mankiw and Hubbard are so widely respected by both sides of the aisle, either (A) Romney’s plan will produce 4% growth or (B) conservative economics doesn’t work.
Report comment to moderator
1945-1983: (38 years).
63 instances of US use of what Sails terms wise use of force to promote “peace”. Almost twice a year. Is this peace or hegemony?
http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm
I’m sure it has gotten worse since then…
How many military bases abroad do we have?
BTW, Sails, speaking of heat and kitchens, I’m still waiting for a response on the SuperPACS.
Report comment to moderator
Neil Evans: Parenthetically, I think the Bible authorizes a democratic system in some form.
Reserving our vote would not be a failure to submit to governing authorities. Also, doing so can have the virtue of being both principled and pragmatic.
I don’t know what nuance can be added to “voting for the lesser of two evils” to make it any less than “support for” the lesser of the two. It can be other things—like “opposing” the greater—but it’s still supporting the lesser, no?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy,
Please explain the differences between President Bush’s Israel policy and President Obama’s.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy, I don’t consider the type of choice between the lesser of evils in the examples you cite to be the same as in our situation. We do not have to choose between evils. Jephthah’s options were to a) renounce his vow, or b) sacrifice his daughter—he either would, or would not, offer the sacrifice. By logical necessity, there was no c) option. The same can be said of Rahab—she could either hide, or expose, the Israelites.
We have more than two choices, and despite Neil Evans’s implication to the contrary, we can do more than just “stand by” even as we withhold our vote. If I handed you a forceps and told you to perform the least painful method of aborting a fetus, which would you select? Or would you hand the instrument back and protest the evil some other way?
Report comment to moderator
CoyoteBlue
Bush never told the Leader of Israel to use the back door of the White House for fear of up seting the Muslims, Obama did.
Report comment to moderator
Bush never walked out of a meeting with the Leader of Israel an not return Obama did.
Report comment to moderator
In politics, purity is the enemy of the good. Not to mention the enemy of victory and actually getting something done.
I don’t think Romney is the lesser of two evils in a race against Obama. I consider him a lesser good than Santorum. I’d consider Gingrich and Paul the lesser of two evils against Obama.
Report comment to moderator
We get what we vote for. We have seen the “opposition” and it is us. I increasingly identify with those who have permanently left this website because of the politics.
Sorry Louise. Politics too often leads to anger and hard feelings.
Report comment to moderator
Romney has said that he isn’t interested in the poor, but rather the middle class. And while I think he’s right to concentrate his efforts there, it didn’t sound good.
Report comment to moderator
Matt Y.,
In politics, purity is the enemy of the good. Not to mention the enemy of victory and actually getting something done.
Are you implying that we conservatives have been getting something done, that compromise and pragmatism has been the means, and now the threat to that work is purity?
What kinds of things have we gotten done, would you say?
Report comment to moderator
Mac you are certainly correct that there are usually more than two options. And God may lead some take an option other than voting. Choosing between two disliked candidates seems hardly as grave as choosing how to kill a child.
It is asked how effective it has recently been to vote for the lesser of two evils. I would ask, what effect is reasonable to expect from refusing to vote? Apart from the unreasonable, though theoretically true, hope of a groundswell of transforming opposition?
Report comment to moderator
Mac – I appreciate your passion, but the abortion analogy is not well thought-out. Aborting the child would not be “common sense,” whereas voting for the better of the two candidates that has any chance of winning is sensible, even if it is not what everyone would do. Unlike the propriety of killing a child, I think this (election) topic is one on which reasonable minds can disagree. In the end, then, we may have to just agree to disagree.
Report comment to moderator
Matt #91 I agree that “lesser of two evils” is exaggerated language. I use it as a useful phrase not as a declaration of genuine evil.
Report comment to moderator
Since we’re discussing politics, here’s some insight from my fellow Oklahoman, Will Rogers.
The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other. The one that’s out always looks the best.
On account of being a democracy and run by the people, we are the only nation in the world that has to keep a government four years, no matter what it does.
Politics has become so expensive that it takes a lot of money even to be defeated.
A fool and his money are soon elected.
Report comment to moderator
Romney’s claim that he would allow states to opt out of healthcare reform on day one vacuous election rhetoric. The law sets some guidelines for states that want permission to opt out including covering the same number of people and not increasing the deficit. The only state even trying to get an exception right now is Vermont, who wants to start a state-wide single payer system. If Romney actually tried to issue exemptions to states that can’t meet the legal requirements for one, all he’ll accomplish is losing a lot of federal court cases.
Roy says, “You can add South Korea and Tiwanii (I sorry I did not spell that right) to the list of Nations that RP would abandon.”
Awww, Roy! You’re adopting my talking points.
Does this make us friends?
Report comment to moderator
Debra 5
A man who supports the growing power of the Executive branch, has no problem mandating health insurance, and whose stance on abortion is purely political, will not appoint justices who represent my viewpoint anyway.
sounds remarkably like Bush Jr (if you substitute pharma care for health care)
Report comment to moderator
Healthcare plan
the ship has sailed … insurance companies like the plan, hence vested interest will insure it stays. And most states have moved ahead, and are planning for the future.
Not to mention single payer plans being considered by some states — once a major state like New York or California pass single payer that’s it. Some rust belt states will soon understand that universal health care may be their edge over right to work southern states who have lower wages. Universal health care has been responsible for the continued presence of the auto industry in Ontario and thus I wouldn’t be surprised if Michigan starts to consider it.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy 32
The best thing for America is to elect a pro-Israel president.
Why? What benefits does American recieve from Isreal???
Romney has said his first foreign visit will be to Israel.
As CoyoteBlue points out, the traditional first foreign visit is to Canada but Bush Jr. did visit Mexico first. This caused some hand wringing among the chattering classes in Canada.
BTW Debra is right about the Saudis –the US sells them arms, after all they pay cash in full. And the Saudis arm and fund many radical groups including Hamas. They also build mosques throughout the western world on the condition they adhere to Wahhabi practices and not more liberal versions. Thus, the moderate Turk/Bosnian/Albanian/Russian Muslims worship in an abandon church downtown with a leaky roof and the Arab Sunnis worship in a large cathedral like mosque in the suburbs one that resembles an evangelical super church in size and facilities.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that corporations and unions are entitled to free speech including putting together political advertisements. For the detailed reasoning, see the Wiki article on the Citizens United case. The basic point is that legally speaking corporations are regarded as persons entitled to free speech.
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy (79): Rahab was praised for hiding the Israelite spies, although that involved deceit. For her situation, lying was the lesser of two evils.
Frank: Deceiving murderous evildoers — even (especially?) when they are from the government — isn’t “evil.” Rather, it is faithfulness to God.
Consider:
And a non-biblical example: European families who hid Jews from the Nazis committed no evil whatsoever — not even a “lesser” one — when they lied about it.
Murderous evildoers do not deserve the to know the truth when it will assist them in their evil. Therefore, such lying cannot be said to be the “lesser of two evils.”
Report comment to moderator
Neil Evans and Buzzy,
I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the abortion analogy. Many Christians, employing the “pragmatic” approach, most certainly do vote for the less-pro-choice candidate when such is their only “major” option on the ballot.
Neil Evans, yes, it was asked how effective the lesser of two evils approach has been. I’m eager to hear an answer. You ask what could reasonably be expected by refusing to vote. I would say *at least* as much could be expected by that approach as could be from the approach we’ve taken in its stead. What if a bloc of 30 million professing evangelicals didn’t vote, but were vocal and active in causes, otherwise. You think we’d still be being ignored and betrayed as we have been these last few decades?
Report comment to moderator
Neil Evans (77): … the differing views regarding the relationship of Israel and the Church … is a complicated discussion and not pertinent to this thread.
Frank: You’d best take it up w/Buzzy (32) then.
Any time a fellow believer urges us to “elect a pro-Israel president” (whatever that means) in order not to “forfeit divine blessings,” it most certainly is pertinent.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, your list does not mention Guatemala 1954, your list is trying to make the US look free of faults when it comes to foreign policy.
Sails, I would have loved the US to use wise, forceful use of power after WWII. The first thing we did after the cold war was overthrow a democracy, install a military junta, and support it as it engaged in 40 years worth of genocide. All to back a US monopoly. We did a lot of good in Europe, but created much pointless hell in Central America.
I also am intrigued about how you use neorealist theory for your views in international relations. One major problem with that theory is that brutal anarchy is not the normal state of affairs. Power transition theory’s assumption of a hierarchy instead of anarchy among nations is not right but is less wrong than neorealism.
Report comment to moderator
Frank, 104 was great. Have you read Bonhoeffer’s ethics? You are the first person on worldmagblog I have seen that adopts its core tenets.
I am not saying that other codes of ethics are less ethical, but its just the first time I have seen it in action on this or any thread.
Report comment to moderator
Mac – read my post 29. I think it holds water.
Report comment to moderator
FRANK @ 104 – Good points. In addition, cooperating with Pharaoh, and with the Nazi’s, would make these believers accomplices in the crimes.
Report comment to moderator
Does anyone dispute that Jephthah was faced with a choice between two evils?
Report comment to moderator
Buzzy,
The R appointees are a mixed bag at best, nor are those choices the only or best measure of conservative accomplishment via pragmatic strategy (not saying you’re saying that, necessarily). I think the harm done by the balance of the W and HW presidencies far outweighs any good their SCOTUS choices did. My sense is it would be the same with Romney, and the more we put up with/vote for/support this kind of thing, the more we’re going to get it.
Report comment to moderator
Jephthah was faced with a choice of two evils, yes. Are we?
Report comment to moderator
Rom116 (108),
No I haven’t, but I’ll make a note of it.
(Although I’m getting to that age when I’m starting to think that maybe my “to read” list my exceed the days allotted me. IOW, I have lousy reading habits!)
However, my training in ethics has largely been informed by theonomic/reconstructionist teaching for the last 12 years or so. (Ever heard of Dr. Greg Bahnsen?)
Report comment to moderator
MacRutabaga (113): Jephthah was faced with a choice of two evils, yes. Are we?
Frank: Only those of us who have made the rash vow to vote for whoever becomes the GOP nominee.
Report comment to moderator
Jephthah sacrificed his daughter, but that does not mean he killed his daughter. Here’s a reasoned answer.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=1273
Report comment to moderator
Neil Evans (68): It seems to me that to stand by and let everyone else choose which of two undesirable options prevails is unwarranted dependence on the sovereignty of God. It would be different if we did not live in a country where God has sovereignly given us the right to vote.
Frank: What do you suppose it would be like if we lived in a country where we had more than two “choices” for president?
Oh that’s right, we do.
Some Christians believe that the fact that God has sovereignly decreed the two-party system means a) Christians are duty-bound to choose select one of the two parties’ candidates, and b) to vote for somebody else is to have voted de facto for whoever actually wins.
Other Christians think that God can just as sovereignly do away with the two-party system that He sovereignly decreed (i.e., the two-party system is not sacred), and that voting one’s conscience without regard to the two-party system is one way He might see fit to do so.
Seems like I’m not the only one here who falls into the latter camp.
Report comment to moderator
The “de facto” argument is spurious.
Let’s say there is Party A, B, and a third party C. I am a supporter of the candidate in party C. However I fear that if I don’t vote for the candidate in Party A, the candidate in Party B will win. Being duped by the “de facto” premise I vote for the candidate in Party A.
After the polls close on a very close race, I find that many people decided to VOTE THEIR CONSCIENCE, and my candidate lost by ONE VOTE to the candidate in Party B, who won anyway.
Ladies and gentlemen, two reasons to VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE.
Report comment to moderator
Sails: Can’t take the heat, eh? Answer the question as to whether you think the SuperPacs which were enabled by the decision are good for democracy.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, it is important in a democracy for all voices to be heard in the public square including those of corporations, unions, and other groups who form Super Pacs.. I’ll take a pass on your moralistic crusade against corporations.
Report comment to moderator
Rpm 116:The first thing we did after the cold war was overthrow a democracy,…
Actually, Eisenhower through covert action overthrew Arbenz in Guatemala during the height of the Cold War. Eisenhower had good reason to suppose that Arbenz, due to his relation with the Communists, was a serious threat to the stability and peace of Central America.
Any history of the Cold War gives Eisenhower high marks for dealing effectively with the world-wide Communist threat to peace and stability. He in fact was one of the masters of real-politic during that exceedingly dangerous period.
Of course, statesmen, including devout Christian ones, when wielding great power at times involve themselves in the admitted darkness of covert activities. International politics is not bean-bag. St. Obama is undoubtedly doing so just now,
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy
Neither of those stories is true. Fox reported a walk out so Obama could have dinner with his wife and kids. Problem with the story is that his wife and kids were not home. The other one — a number of op eds have used “back door” as an analogy — but it wasn’t literal.
I ask again, what are the substantive policy differences between Bush and Obama’s policies on Israel?
Report comment to moderator
Sails: Arcadia, it is important in a democracy for all voices to be heard in the public square including those of corporations, unions, and other groups who form Super Pacs..
They always have had a voice. Nobody has ever denied them the right to speak, express opinions and tried to persuade others to agree.
SuperPacs allow those with lots and lots of money to have much MORE of a voice than ordinary folks.
So Arcadia’s question is valid: Is that good for democracy? Is it better for democracy than in the past when the ordinary citizen had more of a chance to be heard?
Report comment to moderator
CoyoteBlue – both those stories are true.
Report comment to moderator
@100 sounds remarkably like Bush Jr (if you substitute pharma care for health care)
HRW,
Actually, Bush didn’t mandate health insurance of any kind. Part D is strictly optional, and I know people who don’t want it and don’t have it–no penalties involved. And if he’s flipped on abortion, I’m not aware of it. However, he is guilty of increasing the power and scope of the Presidency—horribly. :–(
As for Canadian styled healthcare, it does seem to work for you Canadians. I just don’t think it is practical here in the US. Perhaps there is a fundamental difference in the mindset of people who have developed from a monarchy vs those who see themselves as strictly independently self-governing–and to whom the very idea of monarchy is anathema.
Also, I think the 2-party system has resulted in too much polarization to allow for centralized healthcare. And, as has been mentioned before, our courts have refused to allow us to even keep Social Security money separate from the general fund. So it really has no practical way of working here. And I don’t think it’s a good idea for us anyway.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: What do you think “back door of the White House” means? It’s a mansion in the middle of a city. Do you really think it has an entrance somewhere that someone could use without being visible?
You should stop believing everything you hear on Fox News.
Report comment to moderator
Frank at 115: Well played. It’s interesting how apropos that application actually is.
Report comment to moderator
Suppose there were three (or more) churches in your town and the law was such that every four years one of the churches was to be given 1 million dollars and the right to set the agenda for all the other churches in town. The decision as to which church received the money and the power would be determined by popular vote. As the campaigning progressed it became evident that the churches were on a spectrum of from liberal to conservative, and you attend the conservative church. Suppose that the two churches on the liberal end of the spectrum became the obvious favorites. On election day would you vote for your conservative church which was sure to lose or vote for the least liberal church in order to keep the most liberal church from winning? You would still have no authoritative power but the least liberal church may listen to your concerns more readily than the more liberal church. Would you vote principled and have virtually no influence or vote pragmatic and have some influence?
Report comment to moderator
Interesting story, for the longest time I thought the back of the White House was the Front. It’s the much more iconic looking side. Now Mitt Romney can’t talk about poor people without sticking his feet in his mouth, I don’t think he’ll do much good for Israel and their sensitive, explosive issues.
Report comment to moderator
Just asking, not fighting.
Are we really calling these elections choices between good and “evil?” If so perhaps we need to define “evil.” If the realm of politics is bent toward evil perhaps Christians ought not be involved at all but instead focus all of their attention only on the Church. Or is there something to the idea that the Church is to be salt and light in a fallen world. Are we to influence or to control the world around us?
Report comment to moderator
Neil Evans – How do you determine Evil?
We would say supportig the killing for babies, drug use, same sex marriage etc as being evil.
While the left would declare that speaking out agianst the killing for babies, drug use, same sex marriage etc as being evil.
So the question must be asked what is the standard, being use to determine what is good and what is evil.
Report comment to moderator
SAILS
Eisenhower had good reason to suppose that Arbenz, due to his relation with the Communists, was a serious threat to the stability and peace of Central America.
and how peacful and stable was Central America after the US overthrew a demoncratically elected gov’t in favour of a dictatorship?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy (131): So the question must be asked what is the standard, being use to determine what is good and what is evil.
Frank: A related question must also be asked:
“What is the standard being use to determine which realm/level of government is approriate for punishing various kinds of evil?”
Biblically speaking, crimes is a particular kind of sin: namely, one which is to be punished by the “sword” of civil government.
But not all sins are punishable by the civil government.
Therefore, while all crimes are sins, not all sins are crimes.
Report comment to moderator
EXAMPLE: It is not the legitimate role of civil government to punish peopel for gluttony, or to punish a child for violating his parents’ family rules.
Report comment to moderator
Sails, I am not sure whose revisionist history your are believing, but Arbenz had no ties with communism, so the CIA decided to smuggle arms to Guatemala in order to frame him. This action did nothing to stop Russia, since Russia nor the local communist party was involved. The overthrow of Arbenz and the installation and support of a military junta lead to nothing but the death of tens of thousands of innocent lives.
None of the cold war presidents get high marks for their treatment of Latin America. The destruction and deaths from Guatemala to Argentina were pointless, and did nothing to end the Cold War. The damage the US has done then may blow back on the US if the US does not tread carefully and help mend the damage done. The US has helped Colombia greatly, and many do not hold the US responsible for La Violencia or the Civil War that erupted from it.
The problem with US foreign policy is not that leaders engage in covert acts, the problem is the slaughter of innocent people, whether covert or in the open. The US must end the practice of helping and hurting other nations and peoples at the same time. One can only play both sides of the coin for so long.
Pastor Roy, I do not see the point in conversing with you concerning Ron Paul and his views on Israel, since you ignore everything the man has said and done for the past three decades concerning Israel, instead substituting views and claims he has never held.
Report comment to moderator
Debra
Actually a two party system has very little polarization or diversity, and in fact the difference between the Republicans and Democrats is rather neglible. Both parties could easily fit into the standard Christian Democratic parties in Europe.
The culture difference isn’t monarchy vs independent gov’t but rather a communitarian view vs the lone frontiersman. However, the cultural differences between Americans are just as great. The Old South tradition of honour, urban vs suburban vs rural, Spanish southwest , the Scandanvian upper midwest, mountain states, New England communtarianism, etc. As I mentioned several states from those culturally inclinded may/will go to single payer and will probably benefit economically, leading to more states joing them.
Report comment to moderator
Frank I will check out that fellow.
Report comment to moderator
That is true HRW, the two parties are the same practically when it comes to foreign policy. Their doctrines have been parallel for decades, the only real fight between the two being who gets to get their name-brand on it.
Report comment to moderator
The goal of this election needs to be to defeat Obama. Certainly, one of the most important issues is repealing Obamacare and I think Mr Romney will have trouble in debating the president on this issue because of his Romneycare. But nonetheless, despite all his weaknesses (there are many), Mr Romney I believe would be vastly better for this nation than 4 more disastrous years..
Report comment to moderator
Sails: Nice try. But you fudged and you know it. It really is okay to think that a few individuals or corporations dominating the dialogue and legally bribing public officials with millions or billions of dollars just might be bad for democracy.
Report comment to moderator
Rom 116, Arbenz had plenty of ties to the communists. Eisenhower was hardly one to act without careful analysis of any matter.
Being a Ron Paul devotee, you are rather too prone to both leftist historical agitprop and isolationist naivete. Get real.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
You know how I feel about your question. We’ve discussed it before. I’d like to ban all money in campaigns, from everyone. But sadly, I’m in the minority on that. I think public funding for campaigns would end this nonsense. Everybody gets the same dollars, nobody gets outside influence financially.
A question for you. Do you also include labor unions in the list of those undeserving in your eyes of a voice? If not, why not? They’re rich multimillion dollar operations drowning out our voice as well. And what of PP and the like, also rich, and with undo influence on Democrats? You pick the usual targets from the right, but you left out all from the left. Why? Do you have a problem with donors bundling for Obama and then gettting fat off of our dime?
Report comment to moderator
And here’s one for the Paul fans. So do you agree with Ron, or will you call it what it is, pandering?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72336.html
“Ron Paul dropped his standard stump speech on Wednesday and aggressively courted Latino voters.
At a senior center in East Las Vegas, the Texas congressman told about 100 Hispanics that they have been unfairly made “scapegoats” for the country’s economic troubles. He said it’s “part of human nature” for newcomers to be shunned, but that prejudice toward outsiders worsens when unemployment is high. He said that illegal immigrants were being scapegoated in a manner similar to Jews in Nazi Germany because of tough economic times.”
““When things go badly, individuals look for scapegoats,” he said.
“I just do not believe that barbed-wire fences or guns on our border will solve any of our problems,” he added.”
“On the issue of amnesty for those who entered the country illegally, Paul loaded his comments with uncharacteristic nuance. He said he opposes illegal immigration but quickly added that it would be “impossible” to deport everyone who unlawfully enters the country. He added that America needs to be “more generous about allowing people to come in.””
Huh, and all this time I thought you guys said Paul was all about securing our country.
Report comment to moderator
AJ: I’d like to ban all money in campaigns, from everyone. But sadly, I’m in the minority on that. I think public funding for campaigns would end this nonsense. Everybody gets the same dollars, nobody gets outside influence financially.
I’m in full agreement with this.
Report comment to moderator
Do some more homework, THE REAL AJ.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, at 114, Corporations have every right under our Constitution to free speech including the funding of expensive advertisements.
Truth to be told, they need to spend money in order to defend themselves against the tendency of low politicians to cave in to the numerous Hoipolloi who wish parasitically to milk bright, hard-working, wealthy people.
In America if one graduates from high school, acquires decent skills, and stays married, he/she is likely to join the middle-class. Corporations as well as small businesses make this happen, notwithstanding the whining of you and you leftist ideologue friends.
You with arch sentiment have aligned yourself with the vaunted little people whose virtue is rather exaggerated.
Report comment to moderator
No, Pastor Roy, the stories are not true. Herein lies a major part of the problem. None of the “conservatives” in this commentary have answered a straight up simple question — what are the substantive differences in policy?
Here’s the answer for you all: There are no substantive differences in policy. Read both polices from the source material — easy to find online. Don’t start with editorial or infotainment “news”.
Report comment to moderator
The challenge is to discern what a politicians REAL policy is when they (seemingly all) write official policy primarily to appeal to voters. They try to say things in ways that appeal to the broadest base which may account for the similar appearance of source material. It seems the best way to discern policy is to evaluate behavior.
There is an abundance of egotism and prevarication in this election year. From my perspective there are only two men, of the five in the race, who, when they talk I don’t wonder what the truth really is.
Report comment to moderator
@144 The Real AJ, He said he opposes illegal immigration but quickly added that it would be “impossible” to deport everyone who unlawfully enters the country. He added that America needs to be “more generous about allowing people to come in.””
Huh, and all this time I thought you guys said Paul was all about securing our country.
This sounds like the standard Republican position to me. Are you aware of ANY candidate who wants to round up all the illegals and deport?
Report comment to moderator
Debra,
Perhaps I should have been more specific. You answered the easy part, and are correct. Now try this one. Do you agree with Paul that illegals have been made scapegoats and that barbed wire and guards with guns are unnecessary on our southern border?
“At a senior center in East Las Vegas, the Texas congressman told about 100 Hispanics that they have been unfairly made “scapegoats” for the country’s economic troubles. He said it’s “part of human nature” for newcomers to be shunned, but that prejudice toward outsiders worsens when unemployment is high. He said that illegal immigrants were being scapegoated in a manner similar to Jews in Nazi Germany because of tough economic times.”
““When things go badly, individuals look for scapegoats,” he said.
“I just do not believe that barbed-wire fences or guns on our border will solve any of our problems,” he added.””
Macrutabaga,
Huh? You obviously need to be more specific too.
Report comment to moderator
The Real AJ, aside from this Politico article, what sources did you consult for info on Ron Paul’s border security position?
Report comment to moderator
Mac,
That was kinda the point, this doesn’t sound like the stuff Paul usually says. I’ve been to Paul’s site, I’ve read some of his policy proposals as well. That’s why I said he was pandering. This didn’t sound like him. But he was quoted as saying it by Politico. I just wanted to see if his supporters would at least acknowledge that he was pandering. You failed to do that. Sometimes a question is just a question. Stop being so paranoid.
But I will ask again, pandering, or not?
Report comment to moderator
Mac,
As you can see here, my original question was,
“So do you agree with Ron, or will you call it what it is, pandering?”
Report comment to moderator
The Real AJ: “Paranoid”? How so?
You implied Ron Paul wasn’t really “all about securing our country.” What did he say to indicate to you otherwise?
You quoted one or two sentences, via Politico, as evidence of pandering. Those statements don’t seem out of line with what he’s said before on the subject–which, believe it or not, is more than one or two sentences. Can you make the pandering argument a little clearer for me?
Report comment to moderator
The Real AJ,
In some instances illegals may have been made scapegoats, however it’s way, way over the top to compare them to Jews under the Nazis.
And yes I do disagree with Paul in that we do need boarder guards with guns and, in some cases, fences to protect the borders. It’s my understanding that the boarder properties can be very dangerous and we owe it to our citizens and legal residents to protect the borders.
We do need a consistent and secure border policy.
Report comment to moderator
the real Aj (143): And here’s one for the Paul fans. So do you agree with Ron, or will you call it what it is, pandering?
Frank: I too would like you to unpack your claim that he is “pandering.” I read the entire article (not just the paragraphs you quoted), and I don’t see him as pandering at all. Indeed, it sounded pretty much like standard Ron Paul as re. illegal immigration.
Report comment to moderator
the real Aj (143): Huh, and all this time I thought you guys said Paul was all about securing our country.
Frank: Immediately following the last paragraph you cited, I read:
And this from the end of the article:
Doesn’t strike me as “pandering.” Indeed,, it sounds pretty much just like Ron Paul: Speaking the truth (i.e., his understanding of the Constitution), regardless of the audience.
He appears to have tailored his speech to his audience, but he didn’t tell them whatever they wanted to hear.
Report comment to moderator
Mac says,
“You quoted one or two sentences, via Politico, as evidence of pandering. Those statements don’t seem out of line with what he’s said before on the subject–which, believe it or not, is more than one or two sentences.”
And Frank chimes in with,
“I read the entire article (not just the paragraphs you quoted), and I don’t see him as pandering at all. Indeed, it sounded pretty much like standard Ron Paul as re. illegal immigration.”
To which AJ replies,
So you guys don’t see it as pandering huh? OK then, how do you jive this from Politico piece, which was quoting Paul,
““I just do not believe that barbed-wire fences or guns on our border will solve any of our problems,” he added.”
With this from the official Ron Paul website.
“COMMON SENSE REFORMS
If elected President, Ron Paul will work to implement the following common sense reforms:
* Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.”
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/
Hmmmm, doesn’t exactly jive guys. And Mac you’ll have to forgive me for only using a couple sentence, but that’s all your guy Paul has up on the subject Enforcing border security. A couple of sentences. It seems pretty obvious. Your guy was pandering to Hispanics by using the issue of illegals and securing the border against their continued entry.
Report comment to moderator
real aj: “And Mac you’ll have to forgive me for only using a couple sentence, but that’s all your guy Paul has up on the subject…”
I suppose you’re serious, but I can’t tell. That’s the extent of what Ron Paul has to say on the matter, you think?
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul’s site linked in AJs @158 has considerably more than a couple of sentences. However they may have at least the appearance of inconsistency with the narrow quote of the speech, but perhaps that is because the whole speech is not quoted.
Paul does support guards at the borders (so do I), but the point is just putting guards at the borders will not solve the illegal immigration problem. I think what Paul is getting at is there are ways to fix the problem that are advantageous to the law-abiding Hispanic community here in the US. Some things they may agree with as a group, and some things they won’t. But he wasn’t pandering to the illegal immigrant ‘vote’. The Democrats have that one sewn up I believe. ;–)
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!