Goodbye Ron Paul

I admire Alan Keyes very much, but the same problem, no chance at the nomination. The Republican nominee has no chance at election.

 

With Thompson and Keyes both in the race, the pro-life faction of the GOP is indeed not dead. Good news. :thumbs:

 

Well said, Martin!

The only wasted vote is the one you didn't cast.

 

I could vote for Keys. those who think a GOP canidate cannot win this election will be greatly surprised.

 

I've supported Keyes in the past, and I can support him now. If Newt doesn't run Keyes is my choice. I know Newt has issues, but his knowledge and commitment to America is huge. Gingrich/Keyes perhaps. No other GOP candidate can return America to greatness, IMO.

 

Now if we could only get Keyes and Paul to run a ticket...

LANDSLIDE, BABY!

 

Alan Keyes is an intellectual and philosopher but his pragmatism is sorely lacking. Keyes would be far more inept that anything people imagine Bush has been (I am not saying Bush has or hasn't been, just referring to comments in the MsM and other places about Bush's style).

Executive leadership requires strengths that are not displayed in Keyes. Keyes' strengths are better found in writing, speaking and possibly as a member of a body who would contribute a unique analysis on issues. That is where Keyes' strength lies. But as Executive he simply would fail and be caught up in too much reflection and detail normally reserved for subordinates. This is not to say a President should not be reflective but the style of Keyes' thought is so tedious that it would be self-defeating as opposed to the kind of sound reflection and thought demonstrated by Ronald Reagan.

 

Keyes is okay but Paul has no support in the GOP.

Keyes sort of extinguished himself in Illinois against Obama. He critized Hillary for running in New York and then left Maryland to run in Illinois and got trounced by Obama for being a carpetbagger.

As for Ron Paul, do you really think that the GOP is such a machine that they will vote for whomsoever is on the ticket? I

In other words, Ron Paul, mostly a Libertarian who caucuses with the GOP, has no support among the rank and file GOP--we don't care for Libertarian ideas such as the isolationism of fortress America, the legalization of drugs, prostitution and same-sex marriage, the failure to put murderers to death as commanded in Scripture, and the refusal to support the Reagan idea and policy of a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. You can't just allow some evils to flourish and say that you yourself have plenty of money and therefore are not affected. Peter Marshall once used the illustration of a man who had a nice, green yard with everything about his house immaculately clean. However, he could not take his little baby child out into the yard because the neighbors had a pig sty for a yard and home, and the flies from them would come over and land all over the little baby child.

 

And then the pig ate the little baby child. Insert hysterics here.

 

It was from a sermon of Peter Marshall

Ivon, the illustration was from a sermon of Peter Marshall's dealing, among other things, with what kind of nation we were going to have when the troops came home from World War II.

We have a lot of Libertarians in Indiana. The siphon off votes from the GOP. They never have a chance but they always want a live and let live society. Well, they havelive and let live in Amsterdam. With weak police in Indy, we are already close enough to Amserdam without legalizing all the things that the Libertarians want legalized.

Who, among the GOP, would vote for Ron Paul? He is not a team player--look at his history in Texas where he ran against the slate.

 

church mouse guy, I agree that lbtns "steel" from the GOP and also that they are completely unelectable. My only point is that I defend them philosophically. And I take it this would be the appropriate venue to do so.

 

Tell me

Tell me, Ivon, where do you agree with them philosophically? I sincerely don't understand why a live-and-let-live society would not be worse than the mess we have now, especially in big citites like Indianapolis, which is ridden with crime and vice and infested with religious cults.

By the way, thanks for the nice discussion, on your part, Ivon.

 

Well, church mouse guy, I have no faith in social engineering (affecting behavior) so it isn't a matter of not wanting to make the world a better place to live, but rather a settled acknowledgment that private spiritual problems necessitate private spiritual solutions. Take the escalating divorce rate for instance. Unless one believes that divorce is a product of legislation then it stands to reason that there is no legislative solution. Also, many of the social ills that plague us are not logical. Racism, for example. It also stands to reason that if there is not a logical reason for a problem then there is no logical solution.

It's not that I see disaster itself as preferable. I do see cost efficient disaster as preferable to the bureaucratic variety. Philosophically, I don't see man as molded by environment. I see environment molded by man. This makes the law a mere reflection of social values, not the origin.

 

If things are as they are now, the Democrat will win. If Giulilani runs against Clinton (what a nightmare), Clinton will carry a substantial part of the South.

Only George Bush could set up the perfect conditions for the Democrats to win in 08. The Democrats have no ideas, all they can do is run on the failures of Republicans, and boy, the door is wide open. If the Democrats were not so pathetic, it would be fair to say the Republicans deserve to lose. Aside from the three ring circus at the White House, Craig and Vitter make a mockery of a party that is suppose to mirror Christian values.

I hope you are right. I hope the Republicans nominate a TRUE conservative (unlike Bush) who truly believes in Christian values and knows how to govern.

Martin, your post was very good. One thing puzzles me, and your posts are ones I always pay attention to because they are well thought out, why do you think Thompson is not pro life? Is just inaction on his part like George Bush?

 

For the record, church mouse guy, it has been a pleasure sparring with you. Whatever is the solution to America's moral ineptitude, you are certainly a part of it.