Romney limping towards victory

In Super Tuesday results, Romney won 6 states (Massachusetts, Vermont, Virginia, Idaho, Alaska, and the big prize of Ohio); Santorum won 3 (Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Tennessee), and Gingrich won 1 (his home state of Georgia).

In terms of delegates, with some states awarding them proportionally and others “winner-take-all,” Romney picked up 212, Santorum 84, Gingrich 72, and Paul 22.   So Romney got 54%.

Altogether at this point in the campaign, Romney has 415 delegates, Santorum 176, Gingrich 105, and Paul 47.  Winning the Republican nomination takes 1,144.   So Romney has twice as many as his closest competitor and is just short of being halfway to the nomination.

(I would like to report that in the two-man race in Virginia, where I voted, Ron Paul took 40% of the vote, far more than anyone expected.)

So what now for the Republicans?  Should the other nominees drop out and let the coronation proceed for Romney.  Is it now time for all good men to come to the aid of their party?  Stop bashing each other and unite against the Democratic incumbent?  Or are the stakes so high and electoral doom so inevitable that the competing candidates should just fight for their principles?

 

via News from The Associated Press.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    Romney’s grandfather moved to Mexico so that he could practice polygamy. Mormonism remains a religion that advocates theocracy. I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all for Romney to advocate the legalization of polygamy if he’s elected (and the left is already arguing for it).

    If polygamy is legalized, we’re probably one generation away from sharia law. I’d say the stakes are high.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    Romney’s grandfather moved to Mexico so that he could practice polygamy. Mormonism remains a religion that advocates theocracy. I don’t think it’s unreasonable at all for Romney to advocate the legalization of polygamy if he’s elected (and the left is already arguing for it).

    If polygamy is legalized, we’re probably one generation away from sharia law. I’d say the stakes are high.

  • Eric Brown

    What does it say about our political system if we are encouraged to abandon our principals for the sake of our party? I think it says our parties are corrupt beyond fixing.

  • Eric Brown

    What does it say about our political system if we are encouraged to abandon our principals for the sake of our party? I think it says our parties are corrupt beyond fixing.

  • http://cookinthebooks.wordpress.com David King

    I am not at all excited about Romney as a candidate. Here we go again, another establishment Republicrat; kinda McCain2. I really don’t like his chances against Obama. As poorly as the President has been doing, Americans don’t really like change unless they have to. Would it work for Romney to put together a “team of rivals” and be the administrator of a cabinet comprised of the other candidates? Would that be enough to win? I suspect conservatives better work to put true conservatives (with a backbone) into Congress in hopes of 4 years of gridlock.

  • http://cookinthebooks.wordpress.com David King

    I am not at all excited about Romney as a candidate. Here we go again, another establishment Republicrat; kinda McCain2. I really don’t like his chances against Obama. As poorly as the President has been doing, Americans don’t really like change unless they have to. Would it work for Romney to put together a “team of rivals” and be the administrator of a cabinet comprised of the other candidates? Would that be enough to win? I suspect conservatives better work to put true conservatives (with a backbone) into Congress in hopes of 4 years of gridlock.

  • WebMonk

    The candidates should do whatever they feel they should without regard to the “good of the party”. The “party” hasn’t been worth supporting for quite a while now.

    Ron Paul is in the race to make sure that his positions are strongly stated and spread as widely as possible even though he has no chance of winning the nomination.

    Newt – he’s in it to win it. He surely realizes that it’s a phenomenally long shot right now, but certainly stranger things have happened.

    Santorum – he’s in it to win it too. He is certainly within striking distance, though he is well behind. If Romney doesn’t win enough delegates to take the nomination automatically, then Santorum has a potential shot at grabbing enough support to win the nomination at the convention.

    I don’t see any particular motivation for any of them to drop out, and certainly not for something so nebulous and useless as “the good of the party”. The party isn’t worth an effort as it is right now. Reforming it is something I could understand, but “protecting” it is worthless.

  • WebMonk

    The candidates should do whatever they feel they should without regard to the “good of the party”. The “party” hasn’t been worth supporting for quite a while now.

    Ron Paul is in the race to make sure that his positions are strongly stated and spread as widely as possible even though he has no chance of winning the nomination.

    Newt – he’s in it to win it. He surely realizes that it’s a phenomenally long shot right now, but certainly stranger things have happened.

    Santorum – he’s in it to win it too. He is certainly within striking distance, though he is well behind. If Romney doesn’t win enough delegates to take the nomination automatically, then Santorum has a potential shot at grabbing enough support to win the nomination at the convention.

    I don’t see any particular motivation for any of them to drop out, and certainly not for something so nebulous and useless as “the good of the party”. The party isn’t worth an effort as it is right now. Reforming it is something I could understand, but “protecting” it is worthless.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Just let the process play out. Let voters in upcoming states have their say. If Romney gets to 1,144 delegates, he wins. He isn’t there yet, so there’s no need for anyone to drop out. Each candidate has to make their case to the voters and voters in upcoming states can affirm what previous states have said, or go in a different direction.

    The Democratic nomination process in 2008 was long and drawn out and it didn’t exactly doom their candidate’s chances in the general election.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Just let the process play out. Let voters in upcoming states have their say. If Romney gets to 1,144 delegates, he wins. He isn’t there yet, so there’s no need for anyone to drop out. Each candidate has to make their case to the voters and voters in upcoming states can affirm what previous states have said, or go in a different direction.

    The Democratic nomination process in 2008 was long and drawn out and it didn’t exactly doom their candidate’s chances in the general election.

  • Abby

    “I suspect conservatives better work to put true conservatives (with a backbone) into Congress in hopes of 4 years of gridlock.” — Best idea. But, there is the ‘Executive Order’ which is now being used quite a lot.

  • Abby

    “I suspect conservatives better work to put true conservatives (with a backbone) into Congress in hopes of 4 years of gridlock.” — Best idea. But, there is the ‘Executive Order’ which is now being used quite a lot.

  • Tysen B.

    I would say forget the party and stick to principles. Will Romney get the nod? I think so. He doesn’t have my vote. Will Romney win? I think people are generally willing to leave their candidate of choice and back Romney but I don’t know if it will be enough. For many who don’t support Romney now, a vote cast for him in November will really just be a vote against Obama.

    Our current president and his congressional followers are dangerous to freedom and liberty but will Romney really be that much better? I don’t know. Perhaps the disillusionment is setting in for me. I am one of those conservative twenty-somethings that was looking for something a little more genuine than Romney.

  • Tysen B.

    I would say forget the party and stick to principles. Will Romney get the nod? I think so. He doesn’t have my vote. Will Romney win? I think people are generally willing to leave their candidate of choice and back Romney but I don’t know if it will be enough. For many who don’t support Romney now, a vote cast for him in November will really just be a vote against Obama.

    Our current president and his congressional followers are dangerous to freedom and liberty but will Romney really be that much better? I don’t know. Perhaps the disillusionment is setting in for me. I am one of those conservative twenty-somethings that was looking for something a little more genuine than Romney.

  • Jon

    Let it play out as it must. However, I wish that the candidates would stop running against each other from here onward and instead focus on running against the President who continues to look as if he is above the fray and smiling down at them disdainfully. The President has been in full campaign mode for over a year now. By the time the convention rolls around, will anyone have the stomach left with three months to go for a national campaign against the President? Let the chips fall where they may among the candidates, but please focus on the real opponent and don’t give him a pass, and don’t fall for every shiny object his team baits you with to distract along the path, a’la Sandra Fluke.

  • Jon

    Let it play out as it must. However, I wish that the candidates would stop running against each other from here onward and instead focus on running against the President who continues to look as if he is above the fray and smiling down at them disdainfully. The President has been in full campaign mode for over a year now. By the time the convention rolls around, will anyone have the stomach left with three months to go for a national campaign against the President? Let the chips fall where they may among the candidates, but please focus on the real opponent and don’t give him a pass, and don’t fall for every shiny object his team baits you with to distract along the path, a’la Sandra Fluke.

  • scott

    Wait, Dr Veith, aren’t you going to tell us who got your vote? You’ve been encouraging that discussion for several weeks, I’m sure we’d all like to hear who finally got your vote, and the reasoning behind it.

  • scott

    Wait, Dr Veith, aren’t you going to tell us who got your vote? You’ve been encouraging that discussion for several weeks, I’m sure we’d all like to hear who finally got your vote, and the reasoning behind it.

  • Carl Vehse

    “Wait, Dr Veith, aren’t you going to tell us who got your vote?”

    Good question , Scott @9.

    When Sarah Palin was asked by FoxNews reporter, Neil Cavuto, for whom she voted, Palin answered.

    Palin should have also asked the FoxNews reporter the same question.

  • Carl Vehse

    “Wait, Dr Veith, aren’t you going to tell us who got your vote?”

    Good question , Scott @9.

    When Sarah Palin was asked by FoxNews reporter, Neil Cavuto, for whom she voted, Palin answered.

    Palin should have also asked the FoxNews reporter the same question.

  • Kirk

    Man, only a third of the way there…. sigh.

  • Kirk

    Man, only a third of the way there…. sigh.

  • DonS

    Keeping with the general sentiment, the process should play out. There is no convincing evidence that a good battle among challengers in the primary when a president is running for re-election is bad for that party’s eventual nominee in the general campaign. In fact, if anything, the evidence is to the contrary. Once the nomination is settled, the winner fades to the background for a while, and the sitting president has the stage. By maintaining the campaign, opposition ideas continue to be in the mind of the public.

    Of course, as Joe said above, it is more effective if the candidates are attacking the failed ideas and programs of the sitting president, rather than each other.

  • DonS

    Keeping with the general sentiment, the process should play out. There is no convincing evidence that a good battle among challengers in the primary when a president is running for re-election is bad for that party’s eventual nominee in the general campaign. In fact, if anything, the evidence is to the contrary. Once the nomination is settled, the winner fades to the background for a while, and the sitting president has the stage. By maintaining the campaign, opposition ideas continue to be in the mind of the public.

    Of course, as Joe said above, it is more effective if the candidates are attacking the failed ideas and programs of the sitting president, rather than each other.

  • http://gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    America is like a ship heading for the north pole and its icebergs ($15 trillion debt and rising). We’ve been heading north through many administrations, more rapidly these last two. We need to do an 180 degree turn, lest we hit the ice like Greece et al.

    Obama goes full speed ahead.

    Main stream Republicans keep going in the same direction only slower.

    Only people like Ron Paul even talk about turning around and he can’t win, (although having the right to say, “I told you so.” will have some benefit when the crisis finely becomes undeniable.

    Thus… if it comes down to Obama or Romney, it may be better that Obama wins and at last high spending policies will take the discredit which they deserve. If Romeny were to win, and makes moderate adjustments, then we’ll have the worse case outcome which is that high spending policies will get us into a catastrophe for which frugal policies will be blamed.
    The future is grim no matter how the election goes. God will take His Church through the valley as He always has done.

  • http://gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    America is like a ship heading for the north pole and its icebergs ($15 trillion debt and rising). We’ve been heading north through many administrations, more rapidly these last two. We need to do an 180 degree turn, lest we hit the ice like Greece et al.

    Obama goes full speed ahead.

    Main stream Republicans keep going in the same direction only slower.

    Only people like Ron Paul even talk about turning around and he can’t win, (although having the right to say, “I told you so.” will have some benefit when the crisis finely becomes undeniable.

    Thus… if it comes down to Obama or Romney, it may be better that Obama wins and at last high spending policies will take the discredit which they deserve. If Romeny were to win, and makes moderate adjustments, then we’ll have the worse case outcome which is that high spending policies will get us into a catastrophe for which frugal policies will be blamed.
    The future is grim no matter how the election goes. God will take His Church through the valley as He always has done.

  • Grace

    The news is now reporting:

    BREITBART OBAMA VIDEO SET FOR RELEASE

    FOXNEWS ‘HANNITY’ PLANS FULL AIRING OF TAPE: TONIGHT 9 PM ET

    Depending upon the tapes, and content – this might make HUGE CHANGES in the up-coming election.

  • Grace

    The news is now reporting:

    BREITBART OBAMA VIDEO SET FOR RELEASE

    FOXNEWS ‘HANNITY’ PLANS FULL AIRING OF TAPE: TONIGHT 9 PM ET

    Depending upon the tapes, and content – this might make HUGE CHANGES in the up-coming election.

  • DonS

    This article from The Hill confirms the notion that an extended Republican primary is not necessarily harmful to the ultimate challenger: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/214715-obama-campaign-says-long-gop-primary-hurts-presidents-fundraising

  • DonS

    This article from The Hill confirms the notion that an extended Republican primary is not necessarily harmful to the ultimate challenger: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/214715-obama-campaign-says-long-gop-primary-hurts-presidents-fundraising

  • Bob

    Way to keep your eye on the ball, Grace.

    This is indeed a huge story — after all, Matt the Drudge. told you so.

    And he’s a real journalist!

    And Andrew Breitbart…sadly, still dead.

  • Bob

    Way to keep your eye on the ball, Grace.

    This is indeed a huge story — after all, Matt the Drudge. told you so.

    And he’s a real journalist!

    And Andrew Breitbart…sadly, still dead.

  • Kirk

    @Grace

    Yes… quite.

  • Kirk

    @Grace

    Yes… quite.

  • DonS

    This article in The Mail makes a fair point: http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/03/slouching-to-victory-mitt-romney-wins-super-tuesday-in-a-losing-kind-of-way.html

    He wins six out of 10 states on Super Tuesday and a clear majority of the delegates available. He overcomes a 12-point opinion poll deficit in Ohio to narrowly beat Rick Santorum, who wins only three states. In terms of delegates – the only measure that really counts – Romney is on 386, Santorum on 158, Newt Gingrich on 94 and Ron Paul on 60. He’s still far short of the 1,144 delegates needed to secure the Republican nomination, but that’s because of the proportional system introduced by the Republican party this year. On Super Tuesday, according to RCP’s Erin McPike, he added to his vote total making it 3.2 million votes to Santorum’s 1.9 million. Thus far, he’s won 14 states to Santorum’s six, Gingrich’s two and Ron Paul’s zero.

    Yet this is portrayed as Romney’s “worst night yet”, a “bad night”, as “winning ugly” and his candidacy is branded “lethargic”. Even the most favourable takes on the Super Tuesday results stress that he hasn’t sealed the deal with conservatives, that he’s outspent his rival fourfold but is still only just beating them and that the Obama campaign is delighted with life.

    So what’s going on? Well, no one ever likes frontrunners and the establishment choice. Their well-organised campaigns come across as arrogant and robotic. The press loves a fight and loves an underdog.

  • DonS

    This article in The Mail makes a fair point: http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/03/slouching-to-victory-mitt-romney-wins-super-tuesday-in-a-losing-kind-of-way.html

    He wins six out of 10 states on Super Tuesday and a clear majority of the delegates available. He overcomes a 12-point opinion poll deficit in Ohio to narrowly beat Rick Santorum, who wins only three states. In terms of delegates – the only measure that really counts – Romney is on 386, Santorum on 158, Newt Gingrich on 94 and Ron Paul on 60. He’s still far short of the 1,144 delegates needed to secure the Republican nomination, but that’s because of the proportional system introduced by the Republican party this year. On Super Tuesday, according to RCP’s Erin McPike, he added to his vote total making it 3.2 million votes to Santorum’s 1.9 million. Thus far, he’s won 14 states to Santorum’s six, Gingrich’s two and Ron Paul’s zero.

    Yet this is portrayed as Romney’s “worst night yet”, a “bad night”, as “winning ugly” and his candidacy is branded “lethargic”. Even the most favourable takes on the Super Tuesday results stress that he hasn’t sealed the deal with conservatives, that he’s outspent his rival fourfold but is still only just beating them and that the Obama campaign is delighted with life.

    So what’s going on? Well, no one ever likes frontrunners and the establishment choice. Their well-organised campaigns come across as arrogant and robotic. The press loves a fight and loves an underdog.

  • http://gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    Just curious, is anyone excited over Romney? If so, what are the reasons?

  • http://gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    Just curious, is anyone excited over Romney? If so, what are the reasons?

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Keep it going. No premature coronation for Romney.

    Nothing wrong with a brokered convention.

    P.S. Not a Romney fan here. Would rather have Santorum. See him as the best of the Final Four.

    P.P.S. But any of the 4 GOP’ers are better than Obama. Just like RINO McCain would have been better than Obama.

  • Truth Unites… and Divides

    Keep it going. No premature coronation for Romney.

    Nothing wrong with a brokered convention.

    P.S. Not a Romney fan here. Would rather have Santorum. See him as the best of the Final Four.

    P.P.S. But any of the 4 GOP’ers are better than Obama. Just like RINO McCain would have been better than Obama.

  • Grace

    Pastor Spomer @ 19

    I’m not. I believe he might be just as bad as Obama, maybe worse.

  • Grace

    Pastor Spomer @ 19

    I’m not. I believe he might be just as bad as Obama, maybe worse.

  • Michael B.

    “Just curious, is anyone excited over Romney? If so, what are the reasons?”

    You could be rid of Obama, and Romney has the best chances of beating Obama. I would presume you should be excited about that. If you think another Republican candidate has better chances of beating Obama than Romney, then you are effectively claiming to know more about politics than the GOP leaders. I may disagree with the GOP leaders, but I think they probably know more about political strategy than most of us.

  • Michael B.

    “Just curious, is anyone excited over Romney? If so, what are the reasons?”

    You could be rid of Obama, and Romney has the best chances of beating Obama. I would presume you should be excited about that. If you think another Republican candidate has better chances of beating Obama than Romney, then you are effectively claiming to know more about politics than the GOP leaders. I may disagree with the GOP leaders, but I think they probably know more about political strategy than most of us.

  • Grace

    Michael B @ 22

    It’s not a matter of being excited over Romney winning over Obama, its a doctrinal issue for many. This isn’t all about strategy, it’s about what we as Christian Believers can support, KNOWING full well what Romney stands for. His standard is no where near close to the Word of God, but instead to the cult in which he is a staunch member. For that reason, he’s not a viable candidate.

  • Grace

    Michael B @ 22

    It’s not a matter of being excited over Romney winning over Obama, its a doctrinal issue for many. This isn’t all about strategy, it’s about what we as Christian Believers can support, KNOWING full well what Romney stands for. His standard is no where near close to the Word of God, but instead to the cult in which he is a staunch member. For that reason, he’s not a viable candidate.

  • JunkerGeorg

    Sheesh, I’d support an open Atheist as a Republican nominee for President if he simply heeded the Constitution in its entirety. In fact, I’d much prefer that to a “Christian” who doesn’t.

  • JunkerGeorg

    Sheesh, I’d support an open Atheist as a Republican nominee for President if he simply heeded the Constitution in its entirety. In fact, I’d much prefer that to a “Christian” who doesn’t.

  • Grace

    @ 24 – Junker

    Do you think you’ve disturbed anyone with that nonsensical mindset?

  • Grace

    @ 24 – Junker

    Do you think you’ve disturbed anyone with that nonsensical mindset?

  • Bob

    ‘His standard is no where near close to the Word of God, but instead to the cult in which he is a staunch member. For that reason, he’s not a viable candidate.’

    Oh, I get it.

    According to Grace, we’re not electing a secular President.

    We’re electing a Theologian-in-Chief.

    Somebody better notify our Founders.

  • Bob

    ‘His standard is no where near close to the Word of God, but instead to the cult in which he is a staunch member. For that reason, he’s not a viable candidate.’

    Oh, I get it.

    According to Grace, we’re not electing a secular President.

    We’re electing a Theologian-in-Chief.

    Somebody better notify our Founders.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    So Grace (@23), what you’re saying is that, from a doctrinal standpoint, you support the Roman Catholic church and its teachings?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    So Grace (@23), what you’re saying is that, from a doctrinal standpoint, you support the Roman Catholic church and its teachings?

  • larry

    Eureka I got it! What if we just build a “virtual” republican president and animate him to run for the gop?

    First, we will need a staunch conservative, so we will need to procure Reagan’s principles and put them into an algorithm. Next we need the snappy reply style of Gingrich to the press, so we’ll need to develop a “press reply” algorithm from him. We need a sprinkle of blue collar to garner the “Reagan democrats”, so a touch of Santorum. We need the north so we will have to add the temperament of Christy. We need the south so he’ll need to be a Baptist, preferably Southern Baptist. We need strong hair for that “presidential look of today” so we can give him Mitt’s hair, combed in just right direction with nary a stray hair, a sprinkle of gray to impart the façade of wisdom and “not too young”, cut sharply 1/8 of an inch above the ears so that he is not perceived as having a shred of rebellious hippy in him. We need some height because stats tend to prove that leadership is perceived in the taller of the two candidates up to bat, so we can add Mitt’s height to the mix as well. He must only ever wear dark blue suites with either a red or blue tie. He’ll need a robust stature so we’ll have to mimic the stance and posture of Arnold S., this might also sub-consciously remind some in CA of their former governor and trick them into voting for a conservative.

    That should do.

  • larry

    Eureka I got it! What if we just build a “virtual” republican president and animate him to run for the gop?

    First, we will need a staunch conservative, so we will need to procure Reagan’s principles and put them into an algorithm. Next we need the snappy reply style of Gingrich to the press, so we’ll need to develop a “press reply” algorithm from him. We need a sprinkle of blue collar to garner the “Reagan democrats”, so a touch of Santorum. We need the north so we will have to add the temperament of Christy. We need the south so he’ll need to be a Baptist, preferably Southern Baptist. We need strong hair for that “presidential look of today” so we can give him Mitt’s hair, combed in just right direction with nary a stray hair, a sprinkle of gray to impart the façade of wisdom and “not too young”, cut sharply 1/8 of an inch above the ears so that he is not perceived as having a shred of rebellious hippy in him. We need some height because stats tend to prove that leadership is perceived in the taller of the two candidates up to bat, so we can add Mitt’s height to the mix as well. He must only ever wear dark blue suites with either a red or blue tie. He’ll need a robust stature so we’ll have to mimic the stance and posture of Arnold S., this might also sub-consciously remind some in CA of their former governor and trick them into voting for a conservative.

    That should do.

  • http://gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    JunkerGeorg @24
    I think John Derbyshire would make a good president.

  • http://gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    JunkerGeorg @24
    I think John Derbyshire would make a good president.

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Grace, #25

    @ 24 – Junker

    Do you think you’ve disturbed anyone with that nonsensical mindset?
    ——————————————————————-

    Well Grace, as we struggle to find some actual value and helpful contribution in anything you post, I suppose at very least you and your shrill posts serve as a helpful litmus test not merely for our intellectual sense, but also for sheer sanity and emotional stability by contrast. In this, you’re an easy nut to crack. But hey, no doubt the men in the white coats are waiting to take you back to your room, so I won’t belabor the point.
    —————-

    Pastor Spomer @29,

    Derbyshire is not such an easy nut to crack. I read National Review occasionally, albeit much less than I used to growing up. He may tend towards fiscal conservatism (rightly critical of how the Republicans have not addressed the debt issue), and does rightly see the need to exercise more restraint in our current, adventuristic foreign policy, but he is quite socially liberal in certains areas I am not (e.g., pr0-choice, open to euthanasia, etc.) Having said that, my bottom-line principle for any politician/political thinker is “constitutionality”. So even if I may agree with a Santorum on many social conservative issues, I do not agree with utilizing the Federal level and/or “executive orders” as the mechanisms for imposing such views/putting them into practice, even if we agree on the issue being pushed. After all, ala the “law of unintended consequences”, what happens when the Fed wishes to impose a morality we do not agree with? (Granted, I think affirming pro-life is a Constitutional issue, although unfortunately things have been made complicated even here since we not only cannot agree on when life begins, but cannot even agree on a definition of “life” itself.) But at this point, if you’re ultimate litmus test for any politician is simply: How “constitutional” they’re views are, you will
    no doubt simply be pejoratively labeled by the FauxNews sheeple Republicans as a “libertarian”, which to them would be a ‘nonsensical mindset’. (How little do they really know about the real Reagan–how he did openly embrace many libertarian sentiments based especially on the 10th Amendment relative to limiting Federal Government, that is, before Reagan ceased to be Reagan in his 2nd presidential term….How little do they realize that Ron Paul is more conservative and perhaps less libertarian than “Mr. Conservative”, Barry Goldwater was.)

    But if we’re talking about politicians/political thinkers we like, another Brit I’m a big fan of is Daniel Hannan. Wish he would emigrate to the US, ala Derbyshire did. He has a valuable point of view on US politics, being to look in from the outside persective.

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Grace, #25

    @ 24 – Junker

    Do you think you’ve disturbed anyone with that nonsensical mindset?
    ——————————————————————-

    Well Grace, as we struggle to find some actual value and helpful contribution in anything you post, I suppose at very least you and your shrill posts serve as a helpful litmus test not merely for our intellectual sense, but also for sheer sanity and emotional stability by contrast. In this, you’re an easy nut to crack. But hey, no doubt the men in the white coats are waiting to take you back to your room, so I won’t belabor the point.
    —————-

    Pastor Spomer @29,

    Derbyshire is not such an easy nut to crack. I read National Review occasionally, albeit much less than I used to growing up. He may tend towards fiscal conservatism (rightly critical of how the Republicans have not addressed the debt issue), and does rightly see the need to exercise more restraint in our current, adventuristic foreign policy, but he is quite socially liberal in certains areas I am not (e.g., pr0-choice, open to euthanasia, etc.) Having said that, my bottom-line principle for any politician/political thinker is “constitutionality”. So even if I may agree with a Santorum on many social conservative issues, I do not agree with utilizing the Federal level and/or “executive orders” as the mechanisms for imposing such views/putting them into practice, even if we agree on the issue being pushed. After all, ala the “law of unintended consequences”, what happens when the Fed wishes to impose a morality we do not agree with? (Granted, I think affirming pro-life is a Constitutional issue, although unfortunately things have been made complicated even here since we not only cannot agree on when life begins, but cannot even agree on a definition of “life” itself.) But at this point, if you’re ultimate litmus test for any politician is simply: How “constitutional” they’re views are, you will
    no doubt simply be pejoratively labeled by the FauxNews sheeple Republicans as a “libertarian”, which to them would be a ‘nonsensical mindset’. (How little do they really know about the real Reagan–how he did openly embrace many libertarian sentiments based especially on the 10th Amendment relative to limiting Federal Government, that is, before Reagan ceased to be Reagan in his 2nd presidential term….How little do they realize that Ron Paul is more conservative and perhaps less libertarian than “Mr. Conservative”, Barry Goldwater was.)

    But if we’re talking about politicians/political thinkers we like, another Brit I’m a big fan of is Daniel Hannan. Wish he would emigrate to the US, ala Derbyshire did. He has a valuable point of view on US politics, being to look in from the outside persective.

  • Grace

    I believe Rick Santorum is the best choice – Romney – and Ron Paul, the man who believes prostitution and drugs should be legal the worst of the lot.

  • Grace

    I believe Rick Santorum is the best choice – Romney – and Ron Paul, the man who believes prostitution and drugs should be legal the worst of the lot.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@31):

    I believe Rick Santorum is the best choice

    But Grace, this isn’t all about strategy, it’s about what we as Christian believers can support. A vote for Santorum is a vote for the Pope! This is a doctrinal issue!

    Why are you avidly supporting a known papist — with all the theology that entails — instead of supporting the only Baptist candidate running for the Republican nomination?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@31):

    I believe Rick Santorum is the best choice

    But Grace, this isn’t all about strategy, it’s about what we as Christian believers can support. A vote for Santorum is a vote for the Pope! This is a doctrinal issue!

    Why are you avidly supporting a known papist — with all the theology that entails — instead of supporting the only Baptist candidate running for the Republican nomination?

  • Grace

    I wouldn’t vote for anyone supporting drugs and prostitution. Nor would I vote for cultist.

  • Grace

    I wouldn’t vote for anyone supporting drugs and prostitution. Nor would I vote for cultist.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Hmm. Looks like you’re a little inconsistent in your handling of “doctrinal issues” when it comes to voting, Grace (@33). You wouldn’t vote for a “cultist”, but you would support a papist, all the while decrying a Baptist. Huh.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Hmm. Looks like you’re a little inconsistent in your handling of “doctrinal issues” when it comes to voting, Grace (@33). You wouldn’t vote for a “cultist”, but you would support a papist, all the while decrying a Baptist. Huh.

  • Grace

    I don’t believe anyone can support prostitution and drug use and, at the same time love the LORD.

    The LORD told the adulteress, go, and sin no more.”John 8:11
    We don’t need or want a president who would make that which is sinful legal, to appease the voter.

  • Grace

    I don’t believe anyone can support prostitution and drug use and, at the same time love the LORD.

    The LORD told the adulteress, go, and sin no more.”John 8:11
    We don’t need or want a president who would make that which is sinful legal, to appease the voter.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    There is a significant difference between supporting and encouraging prostitution and drug use and thinking that it is not feasible to enforce laws against them.

    There are lots of bad things that I’d love to see criminalized, but many of those things would be impossible to enforce because of the protections we have under the 4th amendment.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    There is a significant difference between supporting and encouraging prostitution and drug use and thinking that it is not feasible to enforce laws against them.

    There are lots of bad things that I’d love to see criminalized, but many of those things would be impossible to enforce because of the protections we have under the 4th amendment.

  • Grace

    The same goes for a man who believes Joseph Smit will take the place of God. Who stated:

    “My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself.”

    Founder Mormon Church, Joseph Smith,
    Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 4, 1844,

  • Grace

    The same goes for a man who believes Joseph Smit will take the place of God. Who stated:

    “My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself.”

    Founder Mormon Church, Joseph Smith,
    Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 4, 1844,

  • Grace

    Charles

    Prostitution is illegal in most states. WHY LEGALIZE PROSTITION? Do you have a Godly reason why that which God warns against should be made legal?

  • Grace

    Charles

    Prostitution is illegal in most states. WHY LEGALIZE PROSTITION? Do you have a Godly reason why that which God warns against should be made legal?

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    That the money spent on enforcement could be used in better ways, especially since the recidivism rate is nearly 100% and enforcement of those laws is completely ineffective.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    That the money spent on enforcement could be used in better ways, especially since the recidivism rate is nearly 100% and enforcement of those laws is completely ineffective.

  • Grace

    The laws for the most part are working very well against prostition. Your reasons or ‘excuses are lame Charles.

  • Grace

    The laws for the most part are working very well against prostition. Your reasons or ‘excuses are lame Charles.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    80% of prostitutes who are arrested have been arrested for it before. That’s working very well? Wow. I guess we’re working with different definitions of “working very well.”

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    80% of prostitutes who are arrested have been arrested for it before. That’s working very well? Wow. I guess we’re working with different definitions of “working very well.”

  • Grace

    Charles, because prostitutes and those who engineer their business go to jail more than once or twice, doesn’t mean the laws should change.

    Would you appreciate a house of prostitutes with a sign next to your church, or in your local mall? If you vote for legalization, you’re supporting the sale of sex, disease, and all the ills that go with it, is that your idea of ministry?

  • Grace

    Charles, because prostitutes and those who engineer their business go to jail more than once or twice, doesn’t mean the laws should change.

    Would you appreciate a house of prostitutes with a sign next to your church, or in your local mall? If you vote for legalization, you’re supporting the sale of sex, disease, and all the ills that go with it, is that your idea of ministry?

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    I don’t necessarily support legalization. I just am not as Pollyannish about the effectiveness of the laws against it as you are.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    I don’t necessarily support legalization. I just am not as Pollyannish about the effectiveness of the laws against it as you are.

  • Grace

    Charles

    I’m not optimistic about sin, it will continue. We do not however need to legalize it. Prostitution carries with it many ill, such as drugs, crime, child prostitution disease and more. Law enforcement would only increase, and many more lives would be damaged.

    As Christian Believers we need to stand against that which is sinful.

    Being submissive to evil or voting it to be lawful, is not Biblical. Instead we are to:

    11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

    12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

    13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
    Ephesians 6

  • Grace

    Charles

    I’m not optimistic about sin, it will continue. We do not however need to legalize it. Prostitution carries with it many ill, such as drugs, crime, child prostitution disease and more. Law enforcement would only increase, and many more lives would be damaged.

    As Christian Believers we need to stand against that which is sinful.

    Being submissive to evil or voting it to be lawful, is not Biblical. Instead we are to:

    11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

    12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

    13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
    Ephesians 6

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    Nobody’s talking about not standing against that which is sinful. However, there are things government is good at restraining and things they are entirely ineffective at restraining, and it’s not a bad thing to ask whether enforcement works in a particular matter.

    Sodomy, for example, is bad. But it’s impossible to enforce laws against it because we can’t legally gather evidence that it’s taking place. Public profanity is also pretty bad, but since there aren’t cops everywhere at all times it’s not cost effective to criminalize it. One can ask the question about prostitution without suggesting that prostitution isn’t sin.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    Nobody’s talking about not standing against that which is sinful. However, there are things government is good at restraining and things they are entirely ineffective at restraining, and it’s not a bad thing to ask whether enforcement works in a particular matter.

    Sodomy, for example, is bad. But it’s impossible to enforce laws against it because we can’t legally gather evidence that it’s taking place. Public profanity is also pretty bad, but since there aren’t cops everywhere at all times it’s not cost effective to criminalize it. One can ask the question about prostitution without suggesting that prostitution isn’t sin.

  • Grace

    Charles your comparison, using “profanity” etc., is nonsense,when trying to justify legalization of prostitution.

    WHY is leglaization of prostitution so IMPORTANT TO YOU Charles?- that you would argue so strongly for it being lawful? Add to that you stylize yourself as a Rev. That’s very odd.

  • Grace

    Charles your comparison, using “profanity” etc., is nonsense,when trying to justify legalization of prostitution.

    WHY is leglaization of prostitution so IMPORTANT TO YOU Charles?- that you would argue so strongly for it being lawful? Add to that you stylize yourself as a Rev. That’s very odd.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    I never said that legalization of prostitution is important to me. I actually said that I’m perfectly comfortable with the laws as they are. What I said was that there is a substantive difference between thinking the laws against prostitution are ineffective and being supportive of prostitution.

    Though I wouldn’t argue this way, I do think someone could reasonably believe that the money spent enforcing anti-prostitution laws could be better spent in other ways which could be more effective in eliminating prostitution.

    The point is that not all sins are illegal, and they never have been. Some sins, even if they were criminalized, couldn’t be punished by the law in any effective way.

    Do I agree with Ron Paul on prostitution? No. But I think it is an error to equate his position with “support of prostitution.” That’s been my point this whole time.

  • http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Rev. Charles Lehmann

    I never said that legalization of prostitution is important to me. I actually said that I’m perfectly comfortable with the laws as they are. What I said was that there is a substantive difference between thinking the laws against prostitution are ineffective and being supportive of prostitution.

    Though I wouldn’t argue this way, I do think someone could reasonably believe that the money spent enforcing anti-prostitution laws could be better spent in other ways which could be more effective in eliminating prostitution.

    The point is that not all sins are illegal, and they never have been. Some sins, even if they were criminalized, couldn’t be punished by the law in any effective way.

    Do I agree with Ron Paul on prostitution? No. But I think it is an error to equate his position with “support of prostitution.” That’s been my point this whole time.

  • Grace

    Legalized abortion was argued much the same way.. “women would not be subject to back alley abortions, that often result in death” What we have now are millions of unborn infants torn apart in the womb, draged out and thrown in the trash by the millions. What a hideous law.

    Ron Paul supports another sinful damaging law, that of legalizing prostitution and drugs. Prostitution results in the use of children, drugs, and those who engineer the industry.

    I cannot imagine a man who supports such practices to be worth even considering as president. Thankfully, he won’t be president.

  • Grace

    Legalized abortion was argued much the same way.. “women would not be subject to back alley abortions, that often result in death” What we have now are millions of unborn infants torn apart in the womb, draged out and thrown in the trash by the millions. What a hideous law.

    Ron Paul supports another sinful damaging law, that of legalizing prostitution and drugs. Prostitution results in the use of children, drugs, and those who engineer the industry.

    I cannot imagine a man who supports such practices to be worth even considering as president. Thankfully, he won’t be president.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace, it has been explained to you often enough that Ron Paul’s stance is not actually pro-legalization, as such (but rather in favor of these matters being decided by the states, not the federal government), that I must conclude that you are either incapable of understanding that distinction, or simply willfully ignorant on the matter. It’s not for a lack of trying on other people’s parts, though.

    You asked (@38):

    Do you have a Godly reason why that which God warns against should be made legal?

    Why, yes. Yes, I do. It is this: God himself made legal that which was sinful, when he wrote the laws of the nation of Israel. Or did you not notice that divorce was legal for them, even though God hates it? Go and find out why God allowed men to divorce their wives, and you will find out why Christians may favor legalizing some kinds of sinful behavior.

    Of course, I am almost 100% certain that you do not actually favor the criminalization of everything sinful. It is a sin not to fully love the Lord your God completely, and it is likewise a sin not to fully love your neighbor. Shall we therefore make it illegal not to worship God? To not turn the other cheek? To put faith in your own works? To speak ill of your neighbor? Should you be subject to arrest every time you fail to show love to God or your fellow commenters on this blog?

    If you answer no to any of those, then, by your logic, you are therefore in favor of those sins!

    As Christian Believers we need to stand against that which is sinful.

    Yes. As Christian believers. God does not ask us to do this in our roles as voting citizens.

    So the question is: why are you so in favor of criminalizing the sins that you don’t seem to feel tempted by*, but otherwise mute on the criminalization of sins that you do engage in regularly?

    *Not entirely true. You have admitted to using drugs on this blog. It’s just certain drugs that you think should be illegal. I won’t hold my breath for you to explain your rubric on why some drugs should be legal, and others illegal.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace, it has been explained to you often enough that Ron Paul’s stance is not actually pro-legalization, as such (but rather in favor of these matters being decided by the states, not the federal government), that I must conclude that you are either incapable of understanding that distinction, or simply willfully ignorant on the matter. It’s not for a lack of trying on other people’s parts, though.

    You asked (@38):

    Do you have a Godly reason why that which God warns against should be made legal?

    Why, yes. Yes, I do. It is this: God himself made legal that which was sinful, when he wrote the laws of the nation of Israel. Or did you not notice that divorce was legal for them, even though God hates it? Go and find out why God allowed men to divorce their wives, and you will find out why Christians may favor legalizing some kinds of sinful behavior.

    Of course, I am almost 100% certain that you do not actually favor the criminalization of everything sinful. It is a sin not to fully love the Lord your God completely, and it is likewise a sin not to fully love your neighbor. Shall we therefore make it illegal not to worship God? To not turn the other cheek? To put faith in your own works? To speak ill of your neighbor? Should you be subject to arrest every time you fail to show love to God or your fellow commenters on this blog?

    If you answer no to any of those, then, by your logic, you are therefore in favor of those sins!

    As Christian Believers we need to stand against that which is sinful.

    Yes. As Christian believers. God does not ask us to do this in our roles as voting citizens.

    So the question is: why are you so in favor of criminalizing the sins that you don’t seem to feel tempted by*, but otherwise mute on the criminalization of sins that you do engage in regularly?

    *Not entirely true. You have admitted to using drugs on this blog. It’s just certain drugs that you think should be illegal. I won’t hold my breath for you to explain your rubric on why some drugs should be legal, and others illegal.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Also, in keeping with the “logic” behind your comment on Romney (@37, which is of course one of two quotes you seem to know about Mormonism), I would remind you that voting for Santorum means voting for a man who believes this:

    If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema. …

    If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified … let him be accursed.

    If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

    So, why are you supporting a man who believes such things, Grace?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Also, in keeping with the “logic” behind your comment on Romney (@37, which is of course one of two quotes you seem to know about Mormonism), I would remind you that voting for Santorum means voting for a man who believes this:

    If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema. …

    If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified … let him be accursed.

    If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

    So, why are you supporting a man who believes such things, Grace?

  • Joe

    tODD @ 49 & 50 +1

  • Joe

    tODD @ 49 & 50 +1

  • Joe

    btw – anyone else see that Pat Robertson recently came out in favor of legalizing marijuana:

    “I really believe we should treat marijuana the way we treat beverage alcohol,” Mr. Robertson said in an interview on Wednesday. “I’ve never used marijuana and I don’t intend to, but it’s just one of those things that I think: this war on drugs just hasn’t succeeded.”

    Mr. Robertson’s remarks echoed statements he made last week on “The 700 Club,” the signature program of his Christian Broadcasting Network, and other comments he made in 2010. While those earlier remarks were largely dismissed by his followers, Mr. Robertson has now apparently fully embraced the idea of legalizing marijuana, arguing that it is a way to bring down soaring rates of incarceration and reduce the social and financial costs.

    “I believe in working with the hearts of people, and not locking them up,” he said.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/pat-robertson-backs-legalizing-marijuana.html?_r=1

  • Joe

    btw – anyone else see that Pat Robertson recently came out in favor of legalizing marijuana:

    “I really believe we should treat marijuana the way we treat beverage alcohol,” Mr. Robertson said in an interview on Wednesday. “I’ve never used marijuana and I don’t intend to, but it’s just one of those things that I think: this war on drugs just hasn’t succeeded.”

    Mr. Robertson’s remarks echoed statements he made last week on “The 700 Club,” the signature program of his Christian Broadcasting Network, and other comments he made in 2010. While those earlier remarks were largely dismissed by his followers, Mr. Robertson has now apparently fully embraced the idea of legalizing marijuana, arguing that it is a way to bring down soaring rates of incarceration and reduce the social and financial costs.

    “I believe in working with the hearts of people, and not locking them up,” he said.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/us/pat-robertson-backs-legalizing-marijuana.html?_r=1

  • Grace

    Joe

    Good ole Ron Paul supports legalizing cocain and heroin. What a guy.

  • Grace

    Joe

    Good ole Ron Paul supports legalizing cocain and heroin. What a guy.

  • Grace

    I’m not surprised at Pat Robertson. I doubt many people are.

  • Grace

    I’m not surprised at Pat Robertson. I doubt many people are.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@53) said,

    Good ole Ron Paul supports legalizing cocain and heroin. What a guy.

    Yeah, except that, once again, what he actually supports is letting the states decide as to their criminalization, not the federal government.

    You’ve been told that over and over. But you continue to repeat your ignorant talking point. That seems to be your goal here, the repetition of ignorant talking points. I’m not trying to be offensive when I say that — I don’t claim to know whether your ignorance is willful or not — but given how often this has been explained to you, I have to call a spade a spade.

    I’m not surprised at Pat Robertson. I doubt many people are.

    Then what are you smoking, Grace? Yours is a completely ridiculous response. There’s a reason that article appeared in the front page section of the New York Times. Would you have us believe Pat Robertson was nobody’s idea of a social conservative? Please.

    I mean, Joe (@52), my mind was certainly blown when I read that — in a completely legal manner, of course. Thanks for pointing that out.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@53) said,

    Good ole Ron Paul supports legalizing cocain and heroin. What a guy.

    Yeah, except that, once again, what he actually supports is letting the states decide as to their criminalization, not the federal government.

    You’ve been told that over and over. But you continue to repeat your ignorant talking point. That seems to be your goal here, the repetition of ignorant talking points. I’m not trying to be offensive when I say that — I don’t claim to know whether your ignorance is willful or not — but given how often this has been explained to you, I have to call a spade a spade.

    I’m not surprised at Pat Robertson. I doubt many people are.

    Then what are you smoking, Grace? Yours is a completely ridiculous response. There’s a reason that article appeared in the front page section of the New York Times. Would you have us believe Pat Robertson was nobody’s idea of a social conservative? Please.

    I mean, Joe (@52), my mind was certainly blown when I read that — in a completely legal manner, of course. Thanks for pointing that out.

  • Bob

    Suppressing sin worked really well with regard to Prohibition.

  • Bob

    Suppressing sin worked really well with regard to Prohibition.

  • Grace

    Bob,

    Prohibition is not applicable regarding prostitution, heroin and cocaine.

  • Grace

    Bob,

    Prohibition is not applicable regarding prostitution, heroin and cocaine.

  • Joe

    Grace – why? Cocaine and heroin were completely legal until 1914 and the laws against them were not really enforced until the 1970 controlled substances act. Just as with the prohibition of alcohol we have created a violent, illegal black market around once legal substances that were bought and sold with no more ill effects on society than alcohol or cigarettes. This prohibition has also lead to some of the most dramatic curtailing of our 4th amendment rights the nation has ever seen and it has done virtually nothing to prevent anyone who wants to use cocaine and/or heroine from getting access to them. Seems rather on point.

  • Joe

    Grace – why? Cocaine and heroin were completely legal until 1914 and the laws against them were not really enforced until the 1970 controlled substances act. Just as with the prohibition of alcohol we have created a violent, illegal black market around once legal substances that were bought and sold with no more ill effects on society than alcohol or cigarettes. This prohibition has also lead to some of the most dramatic curtailing of our 4th amendment rights the nation has ever seen and it has done virtually nothing to prevent anyone who wants to use cocaine and/or heroine from getting access to them. Seems rather on point.

  • Grace

    Joe

    People can obtain heroin and cocaine, but if it were legal, the usage would be monumental. You can compare the legalization to abortion. Not until it became legal, was it used to kill millions of infants.

    When anything is legalized the attitude becomes “if it’s legal” it must be right. There are millions of young people who would believe themselves justified in such drug use (heroin and cocaine) the same holds true for prostitution. Young women, and men would feel vindicated, validated, and legal, and any other label you want to use in prostituting themselves. Don’t forget, young children are used in this despicable business.

  • Grace

    Joe

    People can obtain heroin and cocaine, but if it were legal, the usage would be monumental. You can compare the legalization to abortion. Not until it became legal, was it used to kill millions of infants.

    When anything is legalized the attitude becomes “if it’s legal” it must be right. There are millions of young people who would believe themselves justified in such drug use (heroin and cocaine) the same holds true for prostitution. Young women, and men would feel vindicated, validated, and legal, and any other label you want to use in prostituting themselves. Don’t forget, young children are used in this despicable business.

  • Grace

    Joe,

    I wish smoking cigarettes and all smoking were illegal. Have you ever watched someon die of lung cancer? It’s horrible. The lungs are drained to alleviate shortness of breath, and mke the patient comfortable. What they drain from the lungs is vile.

    Do you have any idea how much it costs to treat those who have lung cancer, and other addictive habits that result in disease? The resources needed in drug use, the other diseases it causes?

  • Grace

    Joe,

    I wish smoking cigarettes and all smoking were illegal. Have you ever watched someon die of lung cancer? It’s horrible. The lungs are drained to alleviate shortness of breath, and mke the patient comfortable. What they drain from the lungs is vile.

    Do you have any idea how much it costs to treat those who have lung cancer, and other addictive habits that result in disease? The resources needed in drug use, the other diseases it causes?

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Todd, #55,

    “Yeah, except that, once again, what he actually supports is letting the states decide as to their criminalization, not the federal government. You’ve been told that over and over. But you continue to repeat your ignorant talking point. That seems to be your goal here, the repetition of ignorant talking points.”
    ————

    It’s useless to point out reality to those who don’t possess it to begin with, although admittedly it can be funny to listen to them sometimes. While she demands references from everyone else to whatever they cite, she doesn’t supply any direct quote from Ron Paul to back her false accusation regarding him. But then again, for one living on a different planet, dwelling in an echo chamber which they solely inhabit, it makes perfect sense to make up their own reality as they go along.

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Todd, #55,

    “Yeah, except that, once again, what he actually supports is letting the states decide as to their criminalization, not the federal government. You’ve been told that over and over. But you continue to repeat your ignorant talking point. That seems to be your goal here, the repetition of ignorant talking points.”
    ————

    It’s useless to point out reality to those who don’t possess it to begin with, although admittedly it can be funny to listen to them sometimes. While she demands references from everyone else to whatever they cite, she doesn’t supply any direct quote from Ron Paul to back her false accusation regarding him. But then again, for one living on a different planet, dwelling in an echo chamber which they solely inhabit, it makes perfect sense to make up their own reality as they go along.

  • Grace

    Joe

    There was a time when men could beat their wives, and nothing much was done to stop them. The same for beating their children. Laws haven’t illuminated the problem entirely, but it most certainly has curtailed the behavior. People go to jail for abusing their children and spouses, or anyone else for that matter.

  • Grace

    Joe

    There was a time when men could beat their wives, and nothing much was done to stop them. The same for beating their children. Laws haven’t illuminated the problem entirely, but it most certainly has curtailed the behavior. People go to jail for abusing their children and spouses, or anyone else for that matter.

  • Grace

    Legalizing prostitution is about protecting liberty

    Q: You say that the federal government should stay out of people’s personal habits, including marijuana. You feel the same about prostitution and gay marriage. Why should social conservatives vote for you?

    A: They will, if they see that my defense of liberty is the defense of their right to practice religion and say their prayers where they want. It’s an issue of protecting liberty across the board. We don’t have the First Amendment so we can talk about the weather. We have the First Amendment so we can say very controversial things. If you have the inconsistency, then you’re really not defending liberty. You can’t hurt other people, but yes, you have the right to do things that are very controversial. If not, then you’ll have a government that tells us what we can eat and drink and whatever.

    Source: 2011 GOP primary debate in South Carolina , May 5, 2011

    That’s a slippery way to circumvent prostitution. Bring up prayers and food, and slick out. What a guy!

  • Grace

    Legalizing prostitution is about protecting liberty

    Q: You say that the federal government should stay out of people’s personal habits, including marijuana. You feel the same about prostitution and gay marriage. Why should social conservatives vote for you?

    A: They will, if they see that my defense of liberty is the defense of their right to practice religion and say their prayers where they want. It’s an issue of protecting liberty across the board. We don’t have the First Amendment so we can talk about the weather. We have the First Amendment so we can say very controversial things. If you have the inconsistency, then you’re really not defending liberty. You can’t hurt other people, but yes, you have the right to do things that are very controversial. If not, then you’ll have a government that tells us what we can eat and drink and whatever.

    Source: 2011 GOP primary debate in South Carolina , May 5, 2011

    That’s a slippery way to circumvent prostitution. Bring up prayers and food, and slick out. What a guy!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@59):

    People can obtain heroin and cocaine, but if it were legal, the usage would be monumental.

    Would it? Face tattoos are currently legal, but I don’t see a lot of demand for them. Because they’re painful and most people can see how stupid they are. I would argue a similar situation exists for heroin. Even regular users (of milder drugs) know to stay away from it, and how dangerous it can be.

    You can compare the legalization to abortion. Not until it became legal, was it used to kill millions of infants.

    Well, if you’re going to claim that, you’re going to have to tell us how many abortions there were before 1973. But I’m pretty certain you don’t know that. I’m also pretty certain there were not a small number of abortions prior to 1973.

    When anything is legalized the attitude becomes “if it’s legal” it must be right.

    Again, tell me how popular face tattoos are.

    There are millions of young people who would believe themselves justified in such drug use (heroin and cocaine) the same holds true for prostitution.

    I’m pretty certain you don’t know what you’re talking about. Prostitution is already legal in several counties in Nevada, and you know how many people are legal prostitutes there in the whole state? About 800. Meanwhile, there are an estimated 10,000 illegal prostitutes in Las Vegas, where it is illegal. So that’s clearly working.

    I wish smoking cigarettes and all smoking were illegal. Have you ever watched someon die of lung cancer? It’s horrible.

    Have you ever watched someone enjoy an occasional cigar? Is your entire argument based on anecdotes and your own personal reactions to things? What percentage of people who have ever smoked even once die of lung cancer? And if decreasing cancer rates is what our government should be doing, then let’s also criminalize alcohol, carcinogenic foods, and vehicles that emit carcinogenic pollution.

    There was a time when men could beat their wives, and nothing much was done to stop them. The same for beating their children. Laws haven’t illuminated the problem entirely, but it most certainly has curtailed the behavior.

    You appear entirely unaware of the cultural shifts that led to the laws, Grace. Entirely unaware. As if countries started passing those laws even though wife-beating remained really popular.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@59):

    People can obtain heroin and cocaine, but if it were legal, the usage would be monumental.

    Would it? Face tattoos are currently legal, but I don’t see a lot of demand for them. Because they’re painful and most people can see how stupid they are. I would argue a similar situation exists for heroin. Even regular users (of milder drugs) know to stay away from it, and how dangerous it can be.

    You can compare the legalization to abortion. Not until it became legal, was it used to kill millions of infants.

    Well, if you’re going to claim that, you’re going to have to tell us how many abortions there were before 1973. But I’m pretty certain you don’t know that. I’m also pretty certain there were not a small number of abortions prior to 1973.

    When anything is legalized the attitude becomes “if it’s legal” it must be right.

    Again, tell me how popular face tattoos are.

    There are millions of young people who would believe themselves justified in such drug use (heroin and cocaine) the same holds true for prostitution.

    I’m pretty certain you don’t know what you’re talking about. Prostitution is already legal in several counties in Nevada, and you know how many people are legal prostitutes there in the whole state? About 800. Meanwhile, there are an estimated 10,000 illegal prostitutes in Las Vegas, where it is illegal. So that’s clearly working.

    I wish smoking cigarettes and all smoking were illegal. Have you ever watched someon die of lung cancer? It’s horrible.

    Have you ever watched someone enjoy an occasional cigar? Is your entire argument based on anecdotes and your own personal reactions to things? What percentage of people who have ever smoked even once die of lung cancer? And if decreasing cancer rates is what our government should be doing, then let’s also criminalize alcohol, carcinogenic foods, and vehicles that emit carcinogenic pollution.

    There was a time when men could beat their wives, and nothing much was done to stop them. The same for beating their children. Laws haven’t illuminated the problem entirely, but it most certainly has curtailed the behavior.

    You appear entirely unaware of the cultural shifts that led to the laws, Grace. Entirely unaware. As if countries started passing those laws even though wife-beating remained really popular.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Uh, don’t states already decide on the criminalization of prostitution? Are there any federal statutes on the matter? Aren’t they all part of a state’s criminal code? And don’t libertarians also object to states criminalizing “victimless crimes”? Drugs are a different story, with federal anti-drug laws trumping state efforts to be more lenient. But, again, libertarians don’t like it when states choose to get tough on drugs either, do they?

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Uh, don’t states already decide on the criminalization of prostitution? Are there any federal statutes on the matter? Aren’t they all part of a state’s criminal code? And don’t libertarians also object to states criminalizing “victimless crimes”? Drugs are a different story, with federal anti-drug laws trumping state efforts to be more lenient. But, again, libertarians don’t like it when states choose to get tough on drugs either, do they?

  • Grace

    Gene Veith

    “victimless crimes”?

    Do you believe PROSTITUTION, or COCAINE, and HEROIN are victimless crimes, if so could you expand on the subject.

  • Grace

    Gene Veith

    “victimless crimes”?

    Do you believe PROSTITUTION, or COCAINE, and HEROIN are victimless crimes, if so could you expand on the subject.

  • Grace

    Prostitution is allowed within some areas of Nevada – they shioe on the lights, as if to hide the darkness of the dump ~

  • Grace

    Prostitution is allowed within some areas of Nevada – they shioe on the lights, as if to hide the darkness of the dump ~

  • Bob

    I give up.
    :)

  • Bob

    I give up.
    :)

  • Grace

    DEA

    DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION

    Crime, Violence, and Drug Use Go Hand-In-Hand

    If only marijuana, cocaine, and heroin were legalized, there would still be a market for PCP and methamphetamine. Where do legalizers want to draw the line? Or do they support legalizing all drugs, no matter how addictive and dangerous?

    • Proponents of legalization have many theories regarding the connection between drugs and violence. Some dispute the connection between drugs and violence, claiming that drug use is a victimless crime and users are putting only themselves in harm’s way and therefore have the right to use drugs. Other proponents of legalization contend that if drugs were legalized, crime and violence would decrease, believing that it is the illegal nature of drug production, trafficking, and use that fuels crime and violence, rather than the violent and irrational behavior that drugs themselves prompt.

    • Yet, under a legalization scenario, a black market for drugs would still exist. And it would be a vast black market. If drugs were legal for those over 18 or 21, there would be a market for everyone under that age. People under the age of 21 consume the majority of illegal drugs, and so an illegal market and organized crime to supply it would remain—along with the organized crime that profits from it. After Prohibition ended, did the organized crime in our country go down? No. It continues today in a variety of other criminal enterprises. Legalization would not put the cartels out of business; cartels would simply look to other illegal endeavors.

    • If only marijuana were legalized, drug traffickers would continue to traffic in heroin and cocaine. In either case, traffic-related violence would not be ended by legalization.

    • If only marijuana, cocaine, and heroin were legalized, there would still be a market for PCP and methamphetamine. Where do legalizers want to draw the line? Or do they support legalizing all drugs, no matter how addictive and dangerous?

  • Grace

    DEA

    DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION

    Crime, Violence, and Drug Use Go Hand-In-Hand

    If only marijuana, cocaine, and heroin were legalized, there would still be a market for PCP and methamphetamine. Where do legalizers want to draw the line? Or do they support legalizing all drugs, no matter how addictive and dangerous?

    • Proponents of legalization have many theories regarding the connection between drugs and violence. Some dispute the connection between drugs and violence, claiming that drug use is a victimless crime and users are putting only themselves in harm’s way and therefore have the right to use drugs. Other proponents of legalization contend that if drugs were legalized, crime and violence would decrease, believing that it is the illegal nature of drug production, trafficking, and use that fuels crime and violence, rather than the violent and irrational behavior that drugs themselves prompt.

    • Yet, under a legalization scenario, a black market for drugs would still exist. And it would be a vast black market. If drugs were legal for those over 18 or 21, there would be a market for everyone under that age. People under the age of 21 consume the majority of illegal drugs, and so an illegal market and organized crime to supply it would remain—along with the organized crime that profits from it. After Prohibition ended, did the organized crime in our country go down? No. It continues today in a variety of other criminal enterprises. Legalization would not put the cartels out of business; cartels would simply look to other illegal endeavors.

    • If only marijuana were legalized, drug traffickers would continue to traffic in heroin and cocaine. In either case, traffic-related violence would not be ended by legalization.

    • If only marijuana, cocaine, and heroin were legalized, there would still be a market for PCP and methamphetamine. Where do legalizers want to draw the line? Or do they support legalizing all drugs, no matter how addictive and dangerous?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dr. Veith (@65) asked,

    Uh, don’t states already decide on the criminalization of prostitution?

    Indeed.

    Are there any federal statutes on the matter?

    Of course! Not surprisingly, they mainly have to do with sex trafficking and child prostitution. But there are several sections of Title 18 that deal with what one might call more “normal” kinds of prostitution. They outlaw, for instance, prostitution near military bases, or interstate/international travel when connected to prostitution.

    libertarians don’t like it when states choose to get tough on drugs either, do they?

    I think it’s silly to imagine that all libertarians agree on any one thing. It’s not like all liberals or all conservatives agree like that. That said, I’d imagine that most libertarians would prefer a “victimless crime” be made illegal at a lower level of government than at a higher one. I.e. better for the federal government to have less power and give cede the question of legality to the states, even if the states themselves decide to make the thing in question illegal.

    And, again, this is Ron Paul’s stated position on the matter. If you can prove otherwise — that is, that Ron Paul actually supports the legalization of prostitution (or heroin) at every level of government — I’d be interested in hearing about that.

    But a country in which states were banned from “getting tough on drugs” could only enforce that ban with a federal law, which would mean that the federal government reserved power to itself, even if only to enforce a “libertarian” end at lower levels.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dr. Veith (@65) asked,

    Uh, don’t states already decide on the criminalization of prostitution?

    Indeed.

    Are there any federal statutes on the matter?

    Of course! Not surprisingly, they mainly have to do with sex trafficking and child prostitution. But there are several sections of Title 18 that deal with what one might call more “normal” kinds of prostitution. They outlaw, for instance, prostitution near military bases, or interstate/international travel when connected to prostitution.

    libertarians don’t like it when states choose to get tough on drugs either, do they?

    I think it’s silly to imagine that all libertarians agree on any one thing. It’s not like all liberals or all conservatives agree like that. That said, I’d imagine that most libertarians would prefer a “victimless crime” be made illegal at a lower level of government than at a higher one. I.e. better for the federal government to have less power and give cede the question of legality to the states, even if the states themselves decide to make the thing in question illegal.

    And, again, this is Ron Paul’s stated position on the matter. If you can prove otherwise — that is, that Ron Paul actually supports the legalization of prostitution (or heroin) at every level of government — I’d be interested in hearing about that.

    But a country in which states were banned from “getting tough on drugs” could only enforce that ban with a federal law, which would mean that the federal government reserved power to itself, even if only to enforce a “libertarian” end at lower levels.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Also, Grace (@69), congratulations on your ability to copy and paste from the talking points section of the DEA’s website. Glad to see you’re really thinking this through for yourself.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Also, Grace (@69), congratulations on your ability to copy and paste from the talking points section of the DEA’s website. Glad to see you’re really thinking this through for yourself.

  • Grace

    POOR tODD –

    A pity party is in order! Orangeade, popsicles, yummy bars, and a nap!
    :lol:

  • Grace

    POOR tODD –

    A pity party is in order! Orangeade, popsicles, yummy bars, and a nap!
    :lol:

  • Grace

    Check out the site folks – It is not a “talking points” site.

    DEA

    DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION

    http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/07so.htm

    If you feel so inclined, write the DEA about their so called “talking points” – LOL

    Please let us know how it goes. :lol:

  • Grace

    Check out the site folks – It is not a “talking points” site.

    DEA

    DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION

    http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/07so.htm

    If you feel so inclined, write the DEA about their so called “talking points” – LOL

    Please let us know how it goes. :lol:

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@73), if you don’t think that’s a talking-points site, then I have reason to question your ability to assess the quality of information sources.

    I mean, golly gee, what possible reason could the DEA have for defending the status quo on drug criminalization? I can’t imagine!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@73), if you don’t think that’s a talking-points site, then I have reason to question your ability to assess the quality of information sources.

    I mean, golly gee, what possible reason could the DEA have for defending the status quo on drug criminalization? I can’t imagine!

  • Grace

    golly gee LOL, how old are you?

    The DEA has many resources to study the effects of drugs…… they aren’t “taking points” as some blither. They also are aware of those under 18 who would become the NEW criminals seeking drugs. OR, would some of you rather see these kids wishes come true and MAKE DRUGS LEGAL FOR KIDS UNDER 18 – is that what you want? Your CHILDREN and GRANDCHILDREN walking into any drug store ie; drug outlet, at any age, buying cocaine, heroin, meth and all the rest of the drugs that have ruined lives.

    One can “golly gee” the problem away – the statistics aren’t a joke, drugs are a path to no-where. The DEA is a viable source!

  • Grace

    golly gee LOL, how old are you?

    The DEA has many resources to study the effects of drugs…… they aren’t “taking points” as some blither. They also are aware of those under 18 who would become the NEW criminals seeking drugs. OR, would some of you rather see these kids wishes come true and MAKE DRUGS LEGAL FOR KIDS UNDER 18 – is that what you want? Your CHILDREN and GRANDCHILDREN walking into any drug store ie; drug outlet, at any age, buying cocaine, heroin, meth and all the rest of the drugs that have ruined lives.

    One can “golly gee” the problem away – the statistics aren’t a joke, drugs are a path to no-where. The DEA is a viable source!

  • Joe

    Veith @ 65 – most of the libertarians I know would prefer state regulation of drugs to federal regulation.

    But as tODD points out it is not really easy to lump all libertarians into one position on all issues. For example, most polling shows libertarians are evenly split on whether abortion should be legal/illegal.

  • Joe

    Veith @ 65 – most of the libertarians I know would prefer state regulation of drugs to federal regulation.

    But as tODD points out it is not really easy to lump all libertarians into one position on all issues. For example, most polling shows libertarians are evenly split on whether abortion should be legal/illegal.

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Todd, #70,

    “I think it’s silly to imagine that all libertarians agree on any one thing. It’s not like all liberals or all conservatives agree like that. That said, I’d imagine that most libertarians would prefer a “victimless crime” be made illegal at a lower level of government than at a higher one. I.e. better for the federal government to have less power and give cede the question of legality to the states, even if the states themselves decide to make the thing in question illegal.”
    ————

    Well put. Take for instance Roe v. Wade. Many forget that the original situation for that case was that Texas had a state law in place banning abortion. Hence, the appeal to that state law eventually made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which eventually reversed the decision. This is a perfect example of the Federal Government overriding the sovereignty of the individual states. For sure, while some states would ban abortion, other states might rule to legalize abortion, but not only constitutionally speaking do I think this was wrong, but also practically speaking I’d still argue that such is better than letting the Federal Government to decide the matter universally for all states. I mean, as if the Supreme Court will ever reject its ruling now. Not gonna happen. But pro-life Republicans will still justify themselves for allowing for such unconstitutionality which is killing the innocent unborn by reminding themselves that they hold to the pro-life ‘ideal’, even if it amounts to nothing in practical application, saving no lives. Somewhat Pharisaical if you ask me.

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Todd, #70,

    “I think it’s silly to imagine that all libertarians agree on any one thing. It’s not like all liberals or all conservatives agree like that. That said, I’d imagine that most libertarians would prefer a “victimless crime” be made illegal at a lower level of government than at a higher one. I.e. better for the federal government to have less power and give cede the question of legality to the states, even if the states themselves decide to make the thing in question illegal.”
    ————

    Well put. Take for instance Roe v. Wade. Many forget that the original situation for that case was that Texas had a state law in place banning abortion. Hence, the appeal to that state law eventually made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which eventually reversed the decision. This is a perfect example of the Federal Government overriding the sovereignty of the individual states. For sure, while some states would ban abortion, other states might rule to legalize abortion, but not only constitutionally speaking do I think this was wrong, but also practically speaking I’d still argue that such is better than letting the Federal Government to decide the matter universally for all states. I mean, as if the Supreme Court will ever reject its ruling now. Not gonna happen. But pro-life Republicans will still justify themselves for allowing for such unconstitutionality which is killing the innocent unborn by reminding themselves that they hold to the pro-life ‘ideal’, even if it amounts to nothing in practical application, saving no lives. Somewhat Pharisaical if you ask me.

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Joe, post #76

    “But as tODD points out it is not really easy to lump all libertarians into one position on all issues.”
    —-

    This is what is so frustrating when I listen to “compassionate conservative” (Big Government) Republicans use the blanket label of libertarian over against anyone who cries for constitutional government and policy. I mean, can they even give an exact, one-size-fits-all definition of what a libertarian believes?? Can they? No, they can’t. I mean, they don’t even take the time and show enough consideration to distinguish between a conservative libertarian and a liberal libertarian. I’ve seen anywhere from 8 to 28 different types of libertarians defined. There may be more than 28 types.

    I mean, if I myself am libertarian, according to this blanket label I receive from the likes of Fox News, then like I’d guess some others who post on this site, it is mostly in a “Tenther” sense: Wanting to reduce the Federal Government to the powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, no more and no less. This is why Ron Paul wanted to abolish 5 federal departments–not merely because of the fiscal expense they’ve caused, but also because such departments are not enumerated powers granted the Federal Government by the Constitution. Also in fiscal terms, I find no constitutional grounds for a central bank as the Federal Reserve and it’s unbacked fiat currency which is crippling the middle-class financially due to the “tax” which inflationed goods, fuel, and services has burdened them with.

    If some of us be labeled libertarians, that hardly means “liberaltarian” (something the likes of Santorum and most of the Fox News listening audience simply cannot comprehend.) If we suffer the blanket label of libertarian, this hardly means we are not utterly conservative on social issues. It just means we may not believe it is wise to allow one centralized authority to impose/enforce it upon all individuals, lest they end up imposing a morality we do not embrace (as is increasingly happening under the Obama Regime, e.g., recent HHS Mandate). As much as I despise abortion practiced by others, and wish all states would freely choose to abolish it, nevertheless, what is even worse is when the Federal Government forces me as an individual to be party to abortion in any way, even indirectly via my taxes. This is just as bad, if worse ultimately.

    In fact, only until Fox News told me I was a libertarian, I recently had always thought of myself as a conservative Republican in the mold of Reagan (prior to his 2nd term), and saw Ron Paul as the only conservative who was consistently constitutional, the most like Reagan, as Reagan was the most like Goldwater before him. The fact that Ron Paul was one of the few to support Reagan’s candidacy (as Reagan supported Goldwater’s) back when he wasn’t part of the Republican ‘establishment’ goes unnoticed. All three have libertarian elements, if we must use that term. And Ron Paul only left for the libertarian party in the late 80′s in protest to how Reagan suddenly went big government in his 2nd term, a growth in government and deficit spending/debt to be further carried on by George “No New Taxes” Bush Sr. (Actually, perhaps Reagan’s worst move was appointing the Keynesian Alan Greenspan as head of the Federal Reserve, but I digress.) Lastly, I also find it funny when I hear the comment, “I don’t agree with Ron Paul. But I do like Rand Paul.” And yet, if you asked them to find even one smidgen of difference in their views, they would not be able to. It’s just that Hannity is ‘friends’ with Rand, while bashing his father. That’s good enuf for many Fox News listeners I guess, who just blindly follow Hannity (and don’t bat an eyelash when Judge Napalitano gets canned, with Stossel potentially to follow.)

  • JunkerGeorg

    @Joe, post #76

    “But as tODD points out it is not really easy to lump all libertarians into one position on all issues.”
    —-

    This is what is so frustrating when I listen to “compassionate conservative” (Big Government) Republicans use the blanket label of libertarian over against anyone who cries for constitutional government and policy. I mean, can they even give an exact, one-size-fits-all definition of what a libertarian believes?? Can they? No, they can’t. I mean, they don’t even take the time and show enough consideration to distinguish between a conservative libertarian and a liberal libertarian. I’ve seen anywhere from 8 to 28 different types of libertarians defined. There may be more than 28 types.

    I mean, if I myself am libertarian, according to this blanket label I receive from the likes of Fox News, then like I’d guess some others who post on this site, it is mostly in a “Tenther” sense: Wanting to reduce the Federal Government to the powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, no more and no less. This is why Ron Paul wanted to abolish 5 federal departments–not merely because of the fiscal expense they’ve caused, but also because such departments are not enumerated powers granted the Federal Government by the Constitution. Also in fiscal terms, I find no constitutional grounds for a central bank as the Federal Reserve and it’s unbacked fiat currency which is crippling the middle-class financially due to the “tax” which inflationed goods, fuel, and services has burdened them with.

    If some of us be labeled libertarians, that hardly means “liberaltarian” (something the likes of Santorum and most of the Fox News listening audience simply cannot comprehend.) If we suffer the blanket label of libertarian, this hardly means we are not utterly conservative on social issues. It just means we may not believe it is wise to allow one centralized authority to impose/enforce it upon all individuals, lest they end up imposing a morality we do not embrace (as is increasingly happening under the Obama Regime, e.g., recent HHS Mandate). As much as I despise abortion practiced by others, and wish all states would freely choose to abolish it, nevertheless, what is even worse is when the Federal Government forces me as an individual to be party to abortion in any way, even indirectly via my taxes. This is just as bad, if worse ultimately.

    In fact, only until Fox News told me I was a libertarian, I recently had always thought of myself as a conservative Republican in the mold of Reagan (prior to his 2nd term), and saw Ron Paul as the only conservative who was consistently constitutional, the most like Reagan, as Reagan was the most like Goldwater before him. The fact that Ron Paul was one of the few to support Reagan’s candidacy (as Reagan supported Goldwater’s) back when he wasn’t part of the Republican ‘establishment’ goes unnoticed. All three have libertarian elements, if we must use that term. And Ron Paul only left for the libertarian party in the late 80′s in protest to how Reagan suddenly went big government in his 2nd term, a growth in government and deficit spending/debt to be further carried on by George “No New Taxes” Bush Sr. (Actually, perhaps Reagan’s worst move was appointing the Keynesian Alan Greenspan as head of the Federal Reserve, but I digress.) Lastly, I also find it funny when I hear the comment, “I don’t agree with Ron Paul. But I do like Rand Paul.” And yet, if you asked them to find even one smidgen of difference in their views, they would not be able to. It’s just that Hannity is ‘friends’ with Rand, while bashing his father. That’s good enuf for many Fox News listeners I guess, who just blindly follow Hannity (and don’t bat an eyelash when Judge Napalitano gets canned, with Stossel potentially to follow.)

  • Joe

    They canned the Judge? When did that happen?

  • Joe

    They canned the Judge? When did that happen?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X