Carefully Decide Who You Support For President: Perhaps Not Romney.

[specialkornflake]

Hello all,

I would encourage you to do research on all the candidates for President and not support Mr. Romney solely due to his membership in the church. Since I grew up Mormon I'm well aware that free will is an important foundation of Mormon teachings. Specifically, I would ask you to research a fellow Republican nominee who consistently supports the individual's right to liberty, limited government, and free will: Doctor and Congressman Ron Paul from Texas. Furthermore, I would encourage you to examine the United States' current foreign policy and the state of our Constitution in the US.

To learn more, feel free to follow these links or do research on your own:

Official Campaign Page: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Wikipedia Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

Great Youtube videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXRnM55o6Ew

Here are two historical speeches that are very useful:

Listen to President Ezra Taft Benson's speech as Secretary of Agriculture for the United States making a speech in 1965:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kdD0xbubWs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yif110zXHME

It is also good to hear President Dwight David Eisenhower's Farewell Speech, "Military/Industrial Complex", from 1961, as he warns us of the path we have now traveled down:

Thanks!

[FrankJL]

I would love to see Ron Paul win the primary, but sadly, he has as much of a chance of winning the primary as Big Bird does.

He is the only one of those running that does truly believe in smaller government, and has a voting record to prove it.

Romney, Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson are all a disgrace to Regan's idea of true conservatism, limited government, and standing up for what you truly believe in.

[Outshined]

I hate to sound like a pessimist, but I am not enthusiastic about anyone who is running for president in 2008. It seems like it will be a case of picking the one who is just not as bad as the others...

[FrankJL]

Me neither, in case you couldn't tell by my post above.

I really really do like Paul, but no sense in doing groundwork or raising money for him, he has not chance.

In the end, I think I'm going to have to just hold my nose and vote for one of the top 3. I have no idea which one though, I think they all stink..

[cchrissys1]

correct me if i am mistaken but was romney pro abortion? the only time i heard him speak he sounded like he was pro abortion, I think that exmayor of new york is also, it's would be a crime spiritualy to support someone like that. we are acountable for the votes we cast.

[Guest Emma Hale Smith]

correct me if i am mistaken but was romney pro abortion? the only time i heard him speak he sounded like he was pro abortion, I think that exmayor of new york is also, it's would be a crime spiritualy to support someone like that. we are acountable for the votes we cast.

In the '70s he had a sister-in-law die from a "back-alley" abortion, and was from then on pro-choice.

Recently, he looked into a dish of fertilized cells, and suddenly had an epiphany. He is now anti-abortion.

People thought Clinton was a waffler.

BTW, if I haven't mentioned it yet, I went to church with Romney in the '70s. He was a good guy, and very nice to me, the girl from the other side of the tracks.

He just really puts me off with his obvious pandering to the party.

Emma

[CrimsonKairos]

Ron Paul's views on Iraq are to me wacko.

Based on his comments at the Republican Debates, he'd have us withdraw all U.S. presence from the Middle East and be isolationists, never "interfering" with other peoples' countries or problems.

Other than that, he might be an okay dude. He totally came across as a wacko to me with his foreign policy as articulated in the debates. Like there was a disconnect with reality.

I don't know anyone here who'd support Romney just because he's LDS. I'd never support Harry Reid, and he's LDS.

We're not that shallow (I'd hope, anyway).

[specialkornflake]

Me neither, in case you couldn't tell by my post above.

I really really do like Paul, but no sense in doing groundwork or raising money for him, he has not chance.

In the end, I think I'm going to have to just hold my nose and vote for one of the top 3. I have no idea which one though, I think they all stink..

I’m very pleased to hear that you like Dr. Paul but I would encourage you to join in with support. With most of the Republican field unhappy with the current “top tier”, there is plenty of room for lesser known candidates. Ron Paul, quadrupling his first quarter donations, now has more cash on hand than John McCain. To vote for any candidate the Mainstream Media labels as a “top contender” is a shame if your beliefs don’t resonate well with that candidate. Most in the current field are identical on most of their beliefs besides Ron Paul: so casting a vote for Ron Paul in the Primaries is no loss because if any other candidate wins he is largely interchangeable with the next.

Ron Paul's views on Iraq are to me wacko.

Based on his comments at the Republican Debates, he'd have us withdraw all U.S. presence from the Middle East and be isolationists, never "interfering" with other peoples' countries or problems.

Other than that, he might be an okay dude. He totally came across as a wacko to me with his foreign policy as articulated in the debates. Like there was a disconnect with reality.

I don't know anyone here who'd support Romney just because he's LDS. I'd never support Harry Reid, and he's LDS.

We're not that shallow (I'd hope, anyway).

Ron Paul’s views on Iraq and the “war on terror” are certainly different than the rest of the Republican field. His understanding of Iraq and the history of our involvement in that country show a concern in addressing the underlying issues behind our “war on terror” and our involvement in the Middle East rather than building to a fear of another terrorist attack. Here are some videos that, taken as a whole, restate and defend his position in ways that can’t be articulated in a one minute debate window.

Documentary: History of US in Iraq: (First Part - Just link to the rest with “More from this user”)

Ron Paul speaking on the House Floor: (There are countless videos that touch on Ron Paul’s stance in Iraq; this is just one of the better ones)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK8QAeMuGw8

This touches on Ron Paul being called an “isolationist” - towards the middle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAh9sp7ebdY

Thanks!

[CrimsonKairos]

I don't vote for someone based just on beliefs.

What I want to know is, what have they done or what can they do?

Gov. Romney's experience fixing broken organizations and situations impresses me, personally. I'd like to see what he'd do in Washington if we give him the toolbelt of the President, so to speak.

[Jason]

I actually like Ron Paul as a candidate. I am also impressed that his cash on hand is increasing unlike former top-tier McCain. I think the next quarter's numbers will be telling on who's in and who's out.

[CrimsonKairos]

McCain's out, I think.

[prisonchaplain]

Guiliani and Romney are both proven leaders. They command and produce under pressure. Guilliani impresses me a bit more in this area (just gut intution on my part). On the other hand, metamorpheses aside, Romney currently articulates views much closer to my own. I doubt he'll backslide, once in office.

Given the current frustration over the war, and over Bush's inability to win long-term alliances across the aisles, I want a Republican who:

A. Can win (a tough sell this year)

B. Has at least moderately conservative stands

C. Can lead by rallying Republicans and occassionally winning over Democrats.

Ron Paul is only proven on pt. B. Guillioni is particularly weak on point B. So, as of today, I'm siding with http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org

[specialkornflake]

Guiliani and Romney are both proven leaders. They command and produce under pressure. Guilliani impresses me a bit more in this area (just gut intution on my part). On the other hand, metamorpheses aside, Romney currently articulates views much closer to my own. I doubt he'll backslide, once in office.

Given the current frustration over the war, and over Bush's inability to win long-term alliances across the aisles, I want a Republican who:

A. Can win (a tough sell this year)

B. Has at least moderately conservative stands

C. Can lead by rallying Republicans and occassionally winning over Democrats.

Ron Paul is only proven on pt. B. Guillioni is particularly weak on point B. So, as of today, I'm siding with http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org

Mitt Romney is no more proven than Ron Paul for A. Ron Paul has served numerous terms in congress just as Mitt has won a Governorship. In fact, with 70 percent of the US against the war in Iraq, Ron Paul is more likely to win the national election.

Ron Paul is more conservative than Mitt Romney, but you can probably get away saying that Mitt Romney is moderately conservative by today’s standards.

Point C is a strongpoint for Ron Paul: he consistency works with a wide mix of House Members and I know for a fact there is no shortage of liberals registering Republican for the sake of voting Ron Paul. Ron Paul’s voting record almost guarantees no backsliding once in office. People know they can count on him to reduce our presence in the Middle East.

[prisonchaplain]

Mitt Romney is no more proven than Ron Paul for A.

Romney's running at 28%, while Paul has 3%. So, 'Say what?'

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/06/12/top3gop.pdf

Ron Paul has served numerous terms in congress just as Mitt has won a Governorship.

So, Paul has experience garnering a majority of votes in a very conservative district in a very conservative state, charged with going to D.C. and "being a voice." Romney was elected to a state-wide executive position, that required him to manage a state, and work with opposition party members to get things done. It is a truism that governors have better experience than senators, and certainly better than congresspeople, when vying for the presidency.

In fact, with 70 percent of the US against the war in Iraq, Ron Paul is more likely to win the national election.

Wrong. Americans will elect someone they believe can get us out of this mess. It was not enough for Kerry to say, "I'm not Bush." He had no convincing plan to deal with our current situation.

Ron Paul is more conservative than Mitt Romney, but you can probably get away saying that Mitt Romney is moderately conservative by today’s standards.

And, in this political climate, that makes Romney the stronger national candidate.

Point C is a strongpoint for Ron Paul: he consistency works with a wide mix of House Members and I know for a fact there is no shortage of liberals registering Republican for the sake of voting Ron Paul.

Let's get the GOP to nominate the hard-right candidate, so they'll lose the main election. (WA State was a blanket primary state up until a couple of years ago--so I know the tactic).

[specialkornflake]

I really wish we could discuss this in person where discussion would move a lot quicker. There is a lot of background knowledge and understanding needed to enter into any good debate.

Both candidates have skill in working with members of many parties. As far as Ron Paul not polling higher now? Romney's name has been touted on the MSM for months now, it takes time for momentum to build and with Ron Paul quadrupling his Q2 financial numbers things look up. Really polls at this early stage are more about name recognition than true support.

It's hard to predict what will happen between now and November. Add three years of war to what was a close Kerry/Bush election and the Republicans probably don't have a chance with a pro-war candidate. Ron Paul's biggest hurdle is getting the Republican nomination, not the final vote. There can be no doubt that Ron Paul would move swiftly to withdraw the troops when most have waffled on this issue.

As far as labeling one or the other at varying levels of conservatism, it's probably more productive to look at the issues. Ron Paul finds supports with social concerns such as ending War on Drugs and protecting the 2nd amendment that adds an appeal to voters understanding liberty and rights.

I suppose there is no point going back and forth if neither of us are willing to change our positions. Maybe watch the videos I linked in the first post if you haven't already. Thanks for the discussion!

[FrankJL]

Washington state politics:

heh...what a mess you guys made with your last governor's race.

Are you even sure gregorie (or however you spell it) is really your govenor?

3 or 4 recounts until you win by 16 votes..?

[CrimsonKairos]

Dude, don't get me started. Dino should be governor.

[prisonchaplain]

Washington state politics:

heh...what a mess you guys made with your last governor's race.

Are you even sure gregorie (or however you spell it) is really your govenor?

3 or 4 recounts until you win by 16 votes..?

It's not the state's fault--it's mine. I lived in Florida in 2000. "Vote early and vote often!"

[john doe]

I tend to side with Glenn Beck's analysis about the poll numbers concerning the war on terror. I don't think the American people are against killing these terrorists and bringing liberty to an oppressed region of the world. What I think is that most Americans don't believe we're fighting this war to win, and that is what they don't like. The press doesn't want us to win, and the left doesn't want us to win, and they are doing whatever they can to turn this war into another police action, not the all-out war that it needs to be. I think when Americans see that our leaders are serious about winning this war on terror, they will be back on board with it. Until then, it's easy to be a naysayer instead of being part of the solution.

[Elphaba]

I tend to side with Glenn Beck's analysis about the poll numbers concerning the war on terror. I don't think the American people are against killing these terrorists and bringing liberty to an oppressed region of the world. What I think is that most Americans don't believe we're fighting this war to win, and that is what they don't like. . . . . I think when Americans see that our leaders are serious about winning this war on terror, they will be back on board with it. Until then, it's easy to be a naysayer instead of being part of the solution.

Hi John,

You speak of the "War on Terror. "Terror" isn’t a country, and you can’t literally make war on a rhetorical device.

So, would you please explain to me how we would know we have “won” the “War on Terror”? Exactly what things would have to happen for us to declare victory?

The press doesn't want us to win, and the left doesn't want us to win, and they are doing whatever they can to turn this war into another police action, not the all-out war that it needs to be.

The press and the left don't want us to win what, exactly?

Thanks,

Elphie

[prisonchaplain]

War on Terror will be largely won when the Muslim world uniformly denounces terrorist tactics. When the region declares that the cause is right, but the means has been a disgrace to their culture and religion. Will that mean all terror ceases? Of course not. However, it will mean that the extremists will be driven to the fringes, serving as no more than irritants.

I might compare it to the KKK. It's still alive, and has hundreds of members. But, even most southerners who believe the War of Northern Aggression was mostly about states' rights, disavow the silly racists running around in bedsheets.

As for the liberal media--individually, journalists want America to do well, but they do seem almost giddy at the struggle Republicans are having because of the long and difficult struggle in Iraq.

[Elphaba]

War on Terror will be largely won when the Muslim world uniformly denounces terrorist tactics. When the region declares that the cause is right, but the means has been a disgrace to their culture and religion. Will that mean all terror ceases? Of course not. However, it will mean that the extremists will be driven to the fringes, serving as no more than irritants.

I couldn't agree more with your synopsis. I think it is the one and only strategy that will ever work against Islamic terrorism. I have said so plainly in another thread, that only the Muslims will be able to stop the terrorists. There is not a thing America can do about it. For every “terrorist” we shoot, ten more come in to take his place.

The problem I see is that the moderate Muslims are not speaking up and are not crying out against terrorism. They stay fairly silent, and there’s a reason for that.

In order to understand this silence, you have to understand the culture of Islam (which I don’t completely, but have studied as much as I can.)

While the moderate Muslims do not condone terrorism, they also do not condone America sending its soldiers into a Muslim city, walking on Muslim streets, and killing Muslim people. As long as America continues this policy, there will never be the “cushion” the moderate Muslims need to assert their influence on their fellow Muslims to prevent them from spiraling down into a life of more terrorism.

America needs to understand that, in Islam, the street, the house, the politican, the mosque, the people, the water, the holy men, the children, are all one religious entity--they all are "Islam." This is why there is such rage against the US where it does exist in Iraq.

While American soldiers, admirablly, honor the sanctity of the mosque, they don't realize that their walking down the street carrying a gun is just as offensive--they might as well be carrying that gun into the mosque.

America needs to get out of Iraq, dialogue with the moderate Muslisms, and let them do their work. So much damage has already been done I can't imagine any progress for years, but thinking a military strategy will work is insane. As we have already seen, it only exacerbates the rage and hatred these people already have for us and for each other.

As for the liberal media--individually, journalists want America to do well, but they do seem almost giddy at the struggle Republicans are having because of the long and difficult struggle in Iraq.

I disagree, to a point. I think they are just telling the news as it unveils itself. It’s not the journalist’s fault that Iraq has already descended into insanity. It’s not the journalist’s fault the death tolls rises daily. It’s not their fault both the soldiers and the Iraqi citizens are so traumatized. It's not their fault that it’s difficult to come up with new words to say the same thing day after day after day.

I do agree, however, that there is an element of the far left that does seem to revel in the president’s failure. I find this despicable. I would kneel to the ground before President Bush and kiss his ring if it would stop the death and horror of this war. The pictures I’ve seen haunt me every night, and I defy anyone to look at them and celebrate anything.

Elphaba

[prisonchaplain]

While the moderate Muslims do not condone terrorism, they also do not condone America sending its soldiers into a Muslim city, walking on Muslim streets, and killing Muslim people. As long as America continues this policy, there will never be the “cushion” the moderate Muslims need to assert their influence on their fellow Muslims to prevent them from spiraling down into a life of more terrorism.

America needs to understand that, in Islam, the street, the house, the politican, the mosque, the people, the water, the holy men, the children, are all one religious entity--they all are "Islam." This is why there is such rage against the US where it does exist in Iraq.

While American soldiers, admirablly, honor the sanctity of the mosque, they don't realize that their walking down the street carrying a gun is just as offensive--they might as well be carrying that gun into the mosque.

The implication of this analysis seems to be: either go in and colonize (obviously, we're talking about a war against Iraq here, not the more vague "terrorism") or don't go in at all. Such an approach would be simpler. This thing of going in, gathering internal support, trying to work out a pro-US democratic government (i.e. if it most be both, is it really democracy) is a complex, messy game--one we may have lost this go around).

You are probably largely right in your observations. I would still reserve going in militarily for something less than total conquest, as an option. However, it's surely one we'll use far more cautiously next time (Iran?)

America needs to get out of Iraq, dialogue with the moderate Muslisms, and let them do their work. So much damage has already been done I can't imagine any progress for years, but thinking a military strategy will work is insane. As we have already seen, it only exacerbates the rage and hatred these people already have for us and for each other.

It may be too late for a cut and talk approach. Sadly, we're having to settle for establishing a pro-Western oligarchy (we want to make sure our friends win).

As for the liberal media--individually, journalists want America to do well, but they do seem almost giddy at the struggle Republicans are having because of the long and difficult struggle in Iraq.

I disagree, to a point. I think they are just telling the news as it unveils itself. It’s not the journalist’s fault that Iraq has already descended into insanity. It’s not the journalist’s fault the death tolls rises daily. It’s not their fault both the soldiers and the Iraqi citizens are so traumatized. It's not their fault that it’s difficult to come up with new words to say the same thing day after day after day.

I do agree, however, that there is an element of the far left that does seem to revel in the president’s failure. I find this despicable. I would kneel to the ground before President Bush and kiss his ring if it would stop the death and horror of this war. The pictures I’ve seen haunt me every night, and I defy anyone to look at them and celebrate anything.

Elphaba

I think you just agreed with me, in your own way, with your own emphases. The media tend to be peopled by left-leaning journalists. But, sure 'nuff--they didn't create the war that has caused the Republicans so much heartache.

[Elphaba]

The implication of this analysis seems to be: either go in and colonize (obviously, we're talking about a war against Iraq here, not the more vague "terrorism") or don't go in at all. Such an approach would be simpler. This thing of going in, gathering internal support, trying to work out a pro-US democratic government (i.e. if it most be both, is it really democracy) is a complex, messy game--one we may have lost this go around).

Hi PC,

In my opinion it was lost the moment it was conceived. The planners, tthe neocon like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, etc., never took the time to understand the culture in Iraq; I don't believe they even cared. I recall an administration official (don't remember the name) being interviewed a year into the war, and when he was asked if he knew the difference between Sunni and Shia, he did not.

I've alslo read numerous stories by Iraqis who tried to work with the Americans after Saddam was defeated. They tried desperately to get the Americans to listen to them so they could explain how America's actions would be perceived, accepted and rejected by the Iraqi people because of Islam. The American's arrogance of those early days of the war is astonishing. (I am not talking about the troops. I am talking about the top people such as Bremer. He is the perfect example of my illustration.)

This is just my opinion, but I believe, as Americans, the administration assumed life in Iraq was similar. We live in our houses, go to our schools, go to the chapel down the street, and then come home again. So it made sense that the Iraqis did the same, going to the mosque when their religion required it. No one took the time to discover that the street, the homes, the people and the Mosque were Islam. I'm not sure any American decision makers even address that issue today.

You are probably largely right in your observations. I would still reserve going in militarily for something less than total conquest, as an option. However, it's surely one we'll use far more cautiously next time (Iran?)

So what do you see America's military capable of that is "less than total conquest"? I'm not saying there aren't answers to the question. I just feel it was doomed from the beginning and that it is far too late for extensive, significant progress to occurr. I'd love for someone to prove me wrong.

Rather, I see it as the longer we are there, the more it forments such rage and hatred, the suicide bombers will seem like ants crawling around the earth as if at a picnic.

I do know there is a backlash against Al Qaeda in some of the Iraqi cities. Whether it is muscular enough to bring real change, real peace, I believe is still up in the air. But it does harken back to your statement that this is the only way the terrorists will be defeated, and I agree with you. Perhaps we are seeing the seeds of it today. Woldn't that be wonderful?!

It may be too late for a cut and talk approach. Sadly, we're having to settle for establishing a pro-Western oligarchy (we want to make sure our friends win).

I agree. And this will just enrage the extremist Muslims more, which I"ve already explained a million times on another thread.

Lest you think I think I support their rage, I do not. I think their fanaticism is extremely dangerous to all of us. Just look at the way they treat their women--it's barbaric. I just think there's a better way to deal with it, which I think you agreed to as well.

I think you just agreed with me, in your own way, with your own emphases. The media tend to be peopled by left-leaning journalists. But, sure 'nuff--they didn't create the war that has caused the Republicans so much heartache.

I agree with you. But a clarification is in order. When I spoke of an element of the far left, I wasn't referring to the media per se. The is a group of radical leftists, just like there is a radical right. These are the people I believe are not as concerned about the daily death count.

I'll admit, a part of me understands this. I have fought with my family and friends since the beginning of this war, saying there was no reason to start it and no way we could "win," whatever that is. So, yes, I would like to feel vindicated by at least one person agreeing with me. Rather, they're Bush's stubborn 27 percent, so I have to let that one go.

But there are groups of the radical left who enjoy the fact that Bush was so incredibley and tragically wrong, the death count takes a minor position, and as proud as I am of my liberalism, I find this appalling.

I think, basically, we seem to agree about the main issues. That's a first for me here!

Elphie

[prisonchaplain]

Hind sight is a wonderful thing. Most of the world believed that Husseine had WMDs. I do not buy the conspiracy arguments that we knew there were none. So, what if there had been weapons? Would Bush have been vindicated?

Perhaps. But, as you have said, the follow-through was not just poorly conceived, but perhaps was non conceived at all. It is hard for me to believe that there were no plans for after the combat--but that appears to be the case.

So...along comes Iran, boasting of nukes...with it's leader declaring recklessly that we are Satan, and Israel is a cancer needing to be destroyed.

I seriously hope that if we plan to go in, that this time there is a plan in place for the decades-long occupation that will likely be necessary.