Finally A Choice

Thanks, Martin!

Thanks, Martin! I watched the video announcement of Senator Brownback. I have been for Senator Brownback until recently when I changed my mind.

I first heard of him in 2000 when he received the Christian Statesman of the Year award from the Center For Christian Statesmanship in Washington DC, which is an outreach of Fort Lauderdale's Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church and Dr. D. James Kennedy, as you know. http://www.statesman.org/PAGES/Awards/2000.asp

I don't approve of his intention to vote for a resolution against the President's plan in Iraq. It has no legal force but it is insulting to the President. It causes me to question Brownback's judgment and his party loyalty. Also, I don't really want another Roman Catholic President, although I recognize that some Roman Catholics now vote Republican. However, I still think that Brownback is a good Senator and I agree with his pro-life stance, etc.

At this time, I support Rudy Giuliani.

 

I can't support Brownback because he is awful on the issue of illegal immigration. I will not go along with any idea that includes amnesty for illegal aliens in this country. And Huckabee is even worse as he even wants taxpayers to pay for scholarships for the children of illegal aliens.

Huckabee is also soft on criminals. Huckabee is a busybody who wants to tell everybody what they can and can't eat - because he lost a bunch of weight. Huckabee just depleted the emergency fund here in Arkansas as he left office to trash state computers. Now the taxpayers of Arkansas have to replenish the emergency fund and purchase new computers to replace the ones that Huckabee destroyed.

The only candidate who is consistent on all of the issues that Christians interested in limited, constitutional government care about is Congressman Ron Paul. If he goes ahead and runs for the GOP nomination, then that is who to support without question.

 

Ron Paul would get my vote.

Bartimaeus

 

Of all the Republicans, I'd have to say Ron Paul would be the one for whom I could vote.

I had no idea Mouse would favor a pro-abortion candidate, with liberal voting record and a history of marital infidelity.

 

Don't worry, Galatian, you are a liberal Democrat and you will vote in the Democrat primary for whomever will cut and run in Iraq, cutting and running being the official position of The Vatican--The Vatican's position subject to change only if islamofascism attacks The Vatican itself.

Martin, the Democrats and Republicans who oppose the President on the handful of additional troops--not an all-time high in Iraq--have made themselves known publically. Their motives are purely political as they are trying to insure their re-elections in 2008 by hedging their bets in the official record. If they are truly against it, it is time to do what the Democrats did after Watergate and refuse to fund the war anymore. If they still vote to fund the war, then their stance in a non-binding resolution is for pure selfish political reasons as they say merely that they are against what they vote for. The public in Kansas must already know that Brownback wants to cut and run in Iraq and a public statement for his national campaign would be all that is necessary without the pointless resolution designed only to humiliate the President personally for doing what Brownback and others do not have the courage to oppose publically. We saw a lot of this sort of thing during the Viet Nam war. I think that Brownback's voting for the resolution also undermines the military at war.

 

Wow, attacked for being a Catholic and accused of being a Democrat, when you have plainly stated that you are not. All this in only on paragraph. You are improving in your smearing ability, CMG!

 

..........

 

My vote would be for Ron Paul or the congressman from Colorado. It is beyond rational thought of anyone supporting Bush if he could run again. Praise God for the two term limit in this case.

 

Wow, Terry, what are you saying?

Terry, it is a matter of record that the late Pope disliked Bush and opposed the war in Iraq as immoral. I think that the Pope disliked the United States because Catholicism had nothing to do with the founding of this country, which was partly a refuge from Catholicism. The Catholic Church teaches that all non-Catholics go to hell.

As for the fact that Galatian is a liberal Democrat, that is just a fact. I don't think that it is a smear to say that someone is a Democrat stating the Democrat line or a Catholic stating the Catholic line. If you have another take on Galatian's shotgun rhetoric, be my guest.

 

The resolution will discourage US troops in combat.

Martin, thank you for the thoughtful reply.

I supported Brownback for President for two or three years, but I think that he has no chance for several reasons.

Congress does not have the nerve to vote against money for the troops. They have no mandate to do that. Harry Reid, the mormon leader of the Democrats, called for more troops before the election. His party won. We went through this process during Viet Nam and defunding of the troops never happened until after Watergate when the Democrats had landslide majorities. I am not sure that Bush needs additional funding to re-deploy 20,000 troops. However, I don't think that anyone can question Bush's desire to win the war because he has stood alone almost in his resolve to fight until victory. It is the Democrats who have wanted to cut and run as they did in Korea and Viet Nam. The Democrat Party is the peace at any price party. As for second-guessing the military planning, I think that Bush has given the military a free hand. It was Lyndon Johnson who micromanaged the Viet Nam War and whose rules of engagement caused disaster after disaster.

Any plan that calls for withdraw without victory is cut and run by definition. The number of dead Americans, which you mention, Martin, is less than the number of Americans who died in a lot of single days during World War II. The Islamofascists are betting that American culture will not allow the price to be paid for victory. You say that the war is a failure because there has been no victory yet in Iraq and many mistakes. However, you do not discuss what will happen if we cut and run from Iraq because we do not have a victory yet. Brownback needs to talk about a nuclear Iran, with the possibility of a nuclear Turkey, a nuclear Egypt, a nuclear Saudia Arabia, and even a nuclear Jordan (which announced that it will seek to build an atomic bomb). What will happen to American interest when Iran starts ruling Iraq?

Well, Martin, Brownback is trying to humilitate the President and it will cause Brownback's defeat if he actually votes for this resolution. Brownback cannot ask me to be loyal to him if he is not loyal to his President because this is a Republican Party issue. Brownback, as was pointed out on the site about his being 2000 Christian Statesman of the Year, cannot stab the Party in the back that promoted him to where he is now--a US Senator from Kansas. Why should I support him? I do not support McCain for the same reasons. Brownback now looks no different than Hillary. Let's hope he changes his mind and votes against the resolution.

Martin, the resolution does undermine the troops on the frontlines. It says to them that the US Congress is really against them and considers their sacrifice in vain. Not only will the troops feel abandoned by Congress but also the Arabs will notice it right away and take heart. It is one thing for the Democrats to pass such a resolution because everyone knows that the Democrats do not support the war but it is another thing for Republicans to join with the Democrats. Perhaps Brownback should ask the Democrats to nominate him because he will not be welcomed in the Republican primary. Republicans who agree with the Democrats can vote for the Democrats in 2008 and accomplish their goals.

Indiana Senator Richard Lugar says that the resolution is not helpful, that the resolution shows disarray over Irag, and that the resolution might disrupt other military and diplomatic movements.

Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman said that the Resolution will discourage our troops.

No, Martin, Brownback is really too green on foreign policy at this time.

 

I'm not a Catholic, but I agree with the Pope on these points!

On what facts do you base these beliefs?

I find it difficult to think that the Pope looks back in history hundreds of years and then feels the need to be hostile toward the United States to avenge some wrong done the Catholic church. I would at least need some facts to substantiate this before I would even consider it to be true.

You should see things some Baptist churches teach. There are Baptist churches on opposite sides of many beliefs. Just because some Baptist church believes something doesn't mean that you personally believe it. Galatian isn't responsible for everything the Catholic church has ever said. You know this, CMG.

You know full well that Galatian has denied being a Democrat and has stated that he is a Libertarian. To continue to say otherwise is to tell a lie.

 

As compared to whom? The clown in office now?

 

That idea is total rubbish. If there is a Baptist church that teaches only Baptists enter heaven, you would not find me worshiping there. It takes a lot of gall to claim this or that denomination has the exclusive ticket to heaven, since they are all man made. When all is said and done, it is guaranteed there will be plenty of Baptists on church rolls in hell who never knew the Lord who will look up at plenty of people from other denominations in heaven that did know the Lord.

 

..........

 

If the Republican Party doesn't return to conservatism/libertarianism it should be abandoned because it will be no different than the Democrat Party - which isn't evil(such a description goes beyond the pale). But the liberal policies pushed by most Democrats and an increasing number of Republicans are not the direction that I want to see government policy go.