Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Republicans Can’t Win

In an earlier post, I declared that “Nobody Can Win” and had some fun at the expense of the candidates from both sides. But why be fair and balanced? The Democrats can be ludicrous without my help.

So let’s get right to it and take another look at these clowns.

Anyone know where “Mitt” Romney’s nickname comes from? (As I revealed last time, his real name is Willard.) Take a guess. I’ll give you some time to think about it.

(I’m not kidding. I really want you to think about this and take a guess.)

(Whistling and tapping on my desk.)

(Wondering about Ann Coulter’s grooming habits.)

That’s enough. Mitt is short for “Mittens”. According to McSweeney’s, he is named after the family cat. Ok, they are probably making it up. But I think there is a deeper truth there. Cats are known for their elegance, but not for faithfulness. Politically, Mitt(ens) is a tomcat. He’ll pretty much mount on any ball of fur that wonders by. Plus he pees all over the place to mark his territory.* And you know how he treated that poor dog… his natural enemy!

I just can't pick on John McCain. Life has been too hard on him lately. First the Supreme Court puts the last nail in the coffin of his crowning achievement, McCain-Feingold. Next, the immigration bill he championed goes down. Finally, in a truly cruel irony, he has to report his pathetic second quarter fundraising. The man who promised to take the dirty money of politics is in trouble because he can’t raise enough of that dirty money to get the Republican nomination. I’m gonna have a cry now and come back.

(Googling “Ann Coulter naked”. Trust me, you don't want to know.)

OK, I’ve got myself back together and I’m ready to pick on Rudy Guiliani. Lessee – bald, reputation for arrogance, insisted that the World Trade Center would be a dandy place for the city’s emergency response center. Tell me what’s so great about this guy? Republicans imagine that he is immensely admired across America. If they want to believe this, I won’t talk them out of it. They have their own paid researchers to rob them of their illusions.

Fred Thompson – what is it with Republicans and these actors? He has a reputation as a tough guy, a reputation he earned by playing tough guys on TV and in the movies.

I have a revelation to make, and I know some people are going to take it hard. You may want to set down any hot beverages you may be holding.


Actors and actresses are just sock puppets who do and say whatever they are told.

(Yeah, I know, Democrats like actors too. But we don’t choose them to run the freakin’ country/state.)

I don’t know if Law and Order producer Dick Wolf is a Democrat, but if he is I have a great idea of how he can sabotage Fred Thompson. He just has to turn Thompson’s character Arthur Branch into a wimp. Here is what I have in mind. They are shooting a scene where a big time crook confronts Branch in a hallway outside the coutroom.

WOLF: So Pantoni tells you that he is going to get off scot-free, and you cry…


WOLF: He tells you he is going to get off, and you cry like a little girl. Do you think you can keep it up for a couple of minutes?

THOMPSON: That’s crazy, I’m a tough guy!

WOLF: We’re adding another dimension to your character. You’ve been trying to nail this guy for years, but when you finally get him in court he twists the jury to his side. Now all the pain comes out. We are showing the world your soft, feminine side.

THOMPSON: No way, bub! I don't have a soft, feminine side!

WOLF: It says here in your contract: Will cry like a little girl upon request.

THOMPSON: Yeagghh!

If Republicans insist that he is the same person in real-life as he is onscreen, why narrow consideration to that particular role? How about the dim-wittted private investigator he plays in Cape Fear? Nick Nolte is a lawyer being stalked by Robert DeNiro, and he foolishly goes to Fred Thompson for help. (Remember, Thompson IS his character.) Rejecting any ideas of law and order or diplomacy, Thompson advises him to hire some goons to beat the crap out of DeNiro. Needless to say, this "get tough" policy backfires, and Nolte himself ends up looking like a criminal. Does this scenario sound familiar?

I don’t know why Thompson wants to be President anyway. He is already famous, and gets to come home to this. There’s a First Lady who would bring all of the boys to the yard.

OK, I know I should say something more high-minded and elevate our political discourse, but I mean, my god. She’ll be to politics what Eva Longoria is to basketball.

*I do reserve the right to slightly twist the facts. The guy does travel a lot, and must perform the normal human functions. So, QED…

Posted by Woody Mena at July 6, 2007 4:09 PM
Comment #225082

Um, Woody, Fred Thompson started out as a politician, successful senator and all that. It’s not like he was an actor and then decided to go into politics like some other guys…

He has a track record on voting as a senator for years, he has something to run on besides the fact he was in some movies and played a small part on a hit tv show.

Whether *I* would vote for him or not is besides the point, I am against some of what he stands for to be sure, but it is not accurate to put him in the same camp as Regan, Swartzenheffer, Bono, etc.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 6, 2007 5:08 PM
Comment #225085

Actually he want from being an actor, to being a politician, to being an actor again. Which has to make you wonder just how dedicated he is to public service.

Whether he was “successful” Senator is in the eye of the beholder I think.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 6, 2007 5:18 PM
Comment #225086

“Fred Thompson started out as a politician”


Freddie has spent more time honing his skills as a lobbyist than in politics or acting. Although, I’ll admit it is hard to seperate politics from lobbying, it should be regarded about like the difference between the inmates and the guards in a prison system.

I’m actually watching ALL of the presidential candidates and while I still support Biden I’ve considered all of the possibilities and the candidates that scare me the least are (in no particular order): Joe Biden, Duncan Hunter, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, Mike Huckabee, Tommy Thompson and MAYBE John Edwards.

Sadly, they all stand about as much of a chance as a snowball in hell. The three candidates (declared and potential) that scare me the most are Hillary,
Fred, and the Newt!

So, it’s fair to say I want change, but not an implosion or explosion!

Posted by: KansasDem at July 6, 2007 5:38 PM
Comment #225130

A big part of leadership is acting and a big part of campaigning involves television. It is a useful skill, acting. We should not vote for anyone BECAUSE he is an actor, but neither should we hold it against them.

I wonder what WOULD be a good preparation to be president. Many politicians seem to be lawyers. Most lawyers are smart, but as a group they are more ethically challenged than members of the general population. I do not know if I would prefer lawyers or actors.

Dems have an interesting mix, but among the leading candidates (Clinton, Obama & Edwards) you have only around two cumulative weeks of actual management experience. You would not hire any one of them to manage a local fast food outlet (although I am sure that Edwards could run a beauty shop), but I suppose they can manage the whole country with a little help from their friends.


Chris Dodd is the only candidate who supports carbon taxes, so he wins a few points with me, despite his liberal record.


We are a long way from the general election. I am betting on Romney as the Republican and Hillary as the Dem. Both are clever and flexible politicians. The truth is that either would do a decent job. Hillary will have a little trouble beating back the loony left of her own party, but the Clinton machine will crush individuals who stand in their way.

Posted by: Jack at July 7, 2007 12:21 AM
Comment #225135

Jack, I don’t think Romney stands much of a chance, and it’s not just because he polls 10-20% behind the current Republican frontrunners (which itself is not an irrelevant fact) but because of the structural disconnect between him and the Republican geographical base, something Guliani overcomes because of his national reputation. I think it’s between Guliani and Thompson. If it’s Thompson, I think Romney would be at the head of the line for VP though.

I agree about Hillary though. As president during this time of international turmoil and the Islamic-radical threat, she’s actually somebody who could prove useful. It would be nice to see the fearsome Clinton-sycophants and professional Clinton-excuse-makers in the media and the “international community” unleashed for a change on America’s enemies.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at July 7, 2007 12:58 AM
Comment #225149

I notice you leave out attacking Rudy Guliani in your post. His record in NYC is pretty much on heard of anywhere else. To take the most dangerous big city and turn it into the safest in 8 years sounds like a winner to me. To lower crime by half and murders by 2/3.He cut taxes 23 times and turned a $2.3 billion budget deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus, while balancing the city’s budget.

And don’t give me he is too liberal to make it in the RNC. He hates abortion as bad as I do. he also knows, as I that it would be chaos to “just make it illegal tomorro.”

Under his time adoptions increased 66% while abortions decreased over 16% in New York City.

And yes I was adopted. Thank God no one took the life I have today away from me before I could live it. You see a life isn’t a baby or a fetus. My life happens to be 38 years long and very blessed.

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 7, 2007 3:38 AM
Comment #225159


I did make some comments about Giuliani. Whether he is anti-abortion enough for the GOP is not for me to judge. Objectively, he is more “pro-choice” than “pro-life”. In 1999, he was against the partial-birth abortion ban. The only reason to think that he “hates abortion” is because he said so.

His record fighting crime is impressive. I don’t know how relevant that is to being President. After all, you guys like to repeatedly, loudly insist that fighting terrorism is nothing like fighting crime. That was supposed to be John Kerry’s problem, remember?


Yes, he was a lobbyist. And yet is running as someone who is not a Washington insider. They bought it about Bush, so I suppose they’ll buy it about him.


Being an actor is useful in politics. People can’t tell when you are lying.

Thompson was a lawyer, too, as well as an actor and a lobbyist. Everything Republicans claim to hate.

I hope you guys nominate Romney.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 7, 2007 7:15 AM
Comment #225163


Posted by: scottie1321 at July 7, 2007 11:34 AM
Comment #225164


“The only reason to think that he “hates abortion” is because he said so.”

No the reason is the 66% increase in adoptions and a 16% decrease in abortions. that backs up what he says.

“His record fighting crime is impressive. I don’t know how relevant that is to being President.”

Number one it’s not his “crime record”, its his ability to lead that created his record. That’s what makes him a winner.

And believe me! Rudy has less problems with the far right than Hillary, Pelosi and others have with the “bulk” of the far left.

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 7, 2007 11:41 AM
Comment #225165

Didn’t Thompsons senate campaign people take off his lobbiest’s Brooks Brothers suit and put him in a good ole’ boy pick-up and shirt sleeves for his senate campaign? “Be sure and hit wardrobe before the speech,Fred.” Amazing how gullible some on the Rep base are.I wonder how many think Reagan was a war hero because he appeared in a plywood fighter cockpit at studio B.

Thank you also for the pics giving me hope that some day Medicare will cover Viagra.

Posted by: BillS at July 7, 2007 11:53 AM
Comment #225168

One thing I do know is that if Rudy wins the GOP nomination, the NYC firefighters are going to turn the pressure on their hoses to full blast. How can he run on being a big hero of 9/11, when the real heroes think so little of his actions before, during and after the attack?
But maybe America won’t care, and buy the false image that Rudy has worked so hard to create and promote. The country was gullible enough to buy Bush’s fake small-town-cowboy image wholesale, so it isn’t entirely out of the question.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 7, 2007 12:39 PM
Comment #225169
Reagan was a war hero because he appeared in a plywood fighter cockpit at studio B.

The sad thing is REAGAN thought he was a war hero because he appeared in a plywood…


By your logic, Bill Clinton is pro-life. Abortions dropped 14% while he was president.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 7, 2007 12:40 PM
Comment #225171


Giuliani is also probably going to have trouble with the Pope. When the Pope was still Cardinal Ratzinger , he said that pro-choice politicians (read: John Kerry) can’t receive communion. Unless he is an incredible hypocrite he will have to go after Giuliani too.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 7, 2007 12:44 PM
Comment #225178


I don’t ever recall the pope having much involvement in our elections.

Was that because of Clinton’s policies? Or possibly because of the new full color pictures of the fetus in the womb sucking thumbs that started at that time.


Another example of spin, that links discusses the statements of:

“Head Of NYC Firefighters Union”

Which is by far not the feeling of

“the NYC firefighters”

which you use in the text of your link.

the whole of any group that “has” to belong to the union rarely stand 100% behind the beliefs of the union leaders.

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 7, 2007 2:24 PM
Comment #225179

here is a great example of the new technology that shows what a baby looks like in a womb

So Just how far did adoptions raise under Clinton

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 7, 2007 2:27 PM
Comment #225186

“Another example of spin, that links discusses the statements of:

“Head Of NYC Firefighters Union”

Which is by far not the feeling of

“the NYC firefighters””

Yeah, it actually is a feeling that is widely shared. Firefighters call each other Brothers and Sisters, and if you believe that they don’t share this sentiment, then you obviously haven’t been reading much about what these people and their families truly think.
This was a draft letter that was made public awhile back, outlining how a great many NYC firefighters feel about Rudy’s “heroic” treatment of them and theirs:

February 28, 2007

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

On March 14, 2007, the IAFF will host the first bi-partisan Presidential Forum of the 2008 election cycle. No other union — and very few organizations — has the credibility and respect to attract top-tier candidates from both political parties. The lineup of speakers who have agreed to participate in our Forum is truly a testament to our great union and the reputation we have built as a powerful political force and a coveted endorsement.

John Edwards, John McCain, Barack Obama, Chuck Hagel, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Duncan Hunter and seven other candidates will make their case before the 1,000 delegates who will be attending the Forum and to our entire membership via same-day broadcast on our web site.

Early on, the IAFF made a decision to invite all serious candidates from both political parties — except one: former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

We made this decision after considerable soul-searching and close consultation with our two New York City affiliates, the Uniformed Firefighters Association Local 94 and the Uniformed Fire Officers Association Local 854, as well as our former Local 94 President and current IAFF 1st District Vice President covering New York.

The IAFF recognizes that Mayor Giuliani generally enjoys a favorable reputation as a result of his actions immediately after the tragedy of 9/11. As such, we want our affiliates and every one of our members to clearly understand the reason and rationale behind this very serious and sober decision.

Many people consider Rudy Giuliani “America’s Mayor,” and many of our members who don’t yet know the real story, may also have a positive view of him. This letter is intended to make all of our members aware of the egregious acts Mayor Giuliani committed against our members, our fallen on 9/11, and our New York City union officers following that horrific day.

Rest assured, our exclusion of Mayor Giuliani is not about any particular contractual or policy issue or disagreement, nor is it based on his unfriendly relationship with our New York City affiliates prior to 9/11 — which we will document and explain in additional correspondence later on during the campaign. In fact, we invited several candidates with whom we have had substantial disagreement on policy issues because we feel very strongly that our members have the right to hear from all candidates, not just those who tow the IAFF line.

Regrettably, the situation with former Mayor Giuliani is very different. His actions post 9/11 rise to such an offensive and personal attack on our brother and sisterhood — and directly on our union — that the IAFF does not feel Rudy Giuliani deserves an audience of IAFF leaders and members at our own Presidential Forum.

The disrespect that he exhibited to our 343 fallen FDNY brothers, their families and our New York City IAFF leadership in the wake of that tragic day has not been forgiven or forgotten.

In November 2001, our members were continuing the painful, but necessary, task of searching Ground Zero for the remains of our fallen brothers and the thousands of innocent citizens that were killed, because precious few of those who died in the terrorist attacks had been recovered at that point.

Prior to November 2001, 101 bodies or remains of fire fighters had been recovered. And those on the horrible pile at Ground Zero believed they had just found a spot in the rubble where they would find countless more that could be given proper burial.

Nevertheless, Giuliani, with the full support of his Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen, decided on November 2, 2001, to sharply reduce the number of those who could search for remains at any one time. There had been as many as 300 fire fighters at a time involved in search and recovery, but Giuliani cut that number to no more than 25 who could be there at once.

In conjunction with the cut in fire fighters allowed to search, Giuliani also made a conscious decision to institute a “scoop-and-dump” operation to expedite the clean-up of Ground Zero in lieu of the more time-consuming, but respectful, process of removing debris piece by piece in hope of uncovering more remains.

Mayor Giuliani’s actions meant that fire fighters and citizens who perished would either remain buried at Ground Zero forever, with no closure for families, or be removed like garbage and deposited at the Fresh Kills Landfill.

Our Local presidents at the time attempted to meet with the Mayor to stop this despicable treatment of those who perished, but he refused to even see them face-to-face.

The scoop-and-dump continued. And when hundreds of family members of the fallen joined with our affiliate leadership and members to protest Giuliani’s decision, he ordered senior officers of the New York Police Department to arrest 15 of our FDNY brothers, including a number of local elected IAFF leaders.

Giuliani modified his policy after the protest because public opinion was so strongly with our members. Ultimately, he was forced to put the fire fighters back on the pile. Our protests were later proven justified as more bodies were ultimately recovered and those families given a chance for some closure and a decent burial.

Giuliani argued that the change was for our own safety, but his argument was empty and without substance. Fire fighters had been on that pile since minutes after the twin towers fell — why all of a sudden, after nearly two months working on the pile, was Giuliani concerned about fire fighter safety?

In our view, he wasn’t really concerned. The fact is that the Mayor’s switch to a scoop-and-dump coincided with the final removal of tens of millions of dollars of gold, silver and other assets of the Bank of Nova Scotia that were buried beneath what was once the towers. Once the money was out, Giuliani sided with the developers that opposed a lengthy recovery effort, and ordered the scoop-and-dump operation so they could proceed with redevelopment.

In the first few days immediately after the disaster, Giuliani had said he was committed to the recovery of those lost “right down to the last brick.” We believed him at the time. But, what he proved with his actions is that he really meant the “last gold brick.”

Giuliani crucified fire fighters after our protest and publicly stated that our members were essentially acting like babies, that they didn’t have the market cornered on grief. His insensitive statements demonstrated his inability to grasp what members of the FDNY were experiencing.

What Giuliani showed is a disgraceful lack of respect for the fallen and those brothers still searching for them. He exposed our members and leaders to arrest. He valued the money and gold and wanted the site cleared before he left office at the end of 2001 more than he valued the lives and memories of those lost.

Our members deserved the right to continue with a full search for their lost brothers and other innocent victims. Proudly, as you know, the fire service has a code similar to the military, where we leave no one behind. Recovering even a piece of a turnout coat or helmet gave our FDNY brothers and sisters and the families of the fallen some small semblance of peace, something to honor. But hundreds remained entombed in Ground Zero when Giuliani gave up on them.

The fundamental lack of respect that Giuliani showed our FDNY members is unforgivable - and that’s why he was not invited. Our disdain for him is not about issues or a disputed contract, it is about a visceral, personal affront to the fallen, to our union and, indeed, to every one of us who has ever risked our lives by going into a burning building to save lives and property.

We have heard from some affiliates that Giuliani’s campaign is beginning to reach out to our locals, looking to build support. If you are contacted by Giuliani, Von Essen, or a representative of the Giuliani campaign, we hope you will say not just, “No,” but, “Hell no.” And please let the IAFF Political Affairs Department know about it by calling (202) 824-1582.

Please share this correspondence with your membership. Thank you.

Fraternally and Sincerely,

Harold A. Schaitberger, General President

Vincent J. Bollon, General Secretary-Treasurer and Past President, UFOA of NYC, Local 854

Kevin Gallagher, IAFF 1st District Vice President and Past President, UFA of NYC, Local 94

Stephen Cassidy, President, UFA of NYC, Local 94

Peter Gorman, President, UFOA of NYC, Local 854

“Giuliani is also probably going to have trouble with the Pope. When the Pope was still Cardinal Ratzinger , he said that pro-choice politicians (read: John Kerry) can’t receive communion. Unless he is an incredible hypocrite he will have to go after Giuliani too.”

Yes, that’s to be expected I guess. I wonder if the Pope will also have a problem with Rudy’s first marriage to his second cousin being annulled after fourteen years, or that he’s on his third marriage, or the fact that he has had mob connections?

Posted by: Adrienne at July 7, 2007 2:50 PM
Comment #225188


So people didn’t look at those pictures in New York?

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 7, 2007 2:54 PM
Comment #225189

The pope didn’t involve himself in our elections. He made the statement that any Catholic who speaks up for abortions will not be able to recieve the sacraments of the Church. Unfortunatley for Kerry he was a presidential candidate at that time and he is Catholic.

Posted by: KAP at July 7, 2007 2:54 PM
Comment #225193

I think Thompson is going to have trouble getting around the Watergate issues, and that wife of his will not play well in the bible belt. Its hard to believe, but I think Romney has the best shot of winning the nomination. Not that it really matters, even the Democrats can’t screw this up.

Posted by: david s at July 7, 2007 3:20 PM
Comment #225194

The RC also opposes capital punishment. Does that mean no communion for any politician that supports it? This is the US,not Iran. The clergy does not get to pick our leaders and that goes for the Christian right also.

Posted by: BillS at July 7, 2007 3:20 PM
Comment #225199


Apparently supporting abortion is a bigger sin than supporting capital punishment. This came up with Kerry.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 7, 2007 3:32 PM
Comment #225200


“Yeah, it actually is a feeling that is widely shared.”

Well at least you are getting closer. But define “widely”

All NYC firefighters are not in lockstep with your link text of:

“the NYC firefighters are going to turn the pressure on their hoses to full blast”

to imply that they are means you came to the wrong conclusion.

As I have said before:

Look it UP!

Stay away from the political sites and sites that collect facts and make conclusions. You can come to your own conclusions.

The facts are out there.

Find them!

Then discuss YOUR conclusions. You will find you will be wrong less that way. And we all know that each of us have a percentage of wrong conclusions we hold onto.

We just don’t know which ones.


Conclusions taken from far left or far right sites might just be the wrong conclusions!

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 7, 2007 3:39 PM
Comment #225201


Yes you are right,

Abortion involves killing the innocent.

Capital punishment involves the far from innocent.

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 7, 2007 3:41 PM
Comment #225202

david s,

I wouldn’t assume that having a hot wife is going to be a problem.

He would be well advised, however, to remember what happened to another Republican politician who was married to attractive blonde named Jeri.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 7, 2007 4:09 PM
Comment #225204

scottie1321- Since I have never found Adrienne to
to have fabricated or mislead us, an most generally

backs up her statements, with facts or she at least
comes as close to the truth as possible. Then there

are those who find difficulties distinguishing truth
from facts. Most people who know a fact are more

than willing to share them, instead of telling them
to search for them.

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 7, 2007 5:12 PM
Comment #225205

Interesting story: Thompson lobbied for an abortion rights group.,0,4461428,full.story

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 7, 2007 5:13 PM
Comment #225208


“scottie1321- Since I have never found Adrienne to
to have fabricated or mislead us, an most generally backs up her statements, with facts or she at least comes as close to the truth as possible.”


But we all have wrong conclusions.

“Then there are those who find difficulties distinguishing truth from facts.”

WHAT? Your truth better be based ON facts!

“Most people who know a fact are more than willing to share them, instead of telling them to search for them.”

No, Again you are Wrong. People twist their facts. One can’t rely on other bloggers providing the facts. I do provide links and facts. Sometimes I don’t, I encourage people to look for themselves.
Why would anyone argue against that? It is because many in the far left don’t believe the ordinary man is “smart” enough to figure it out themselves. So the far left continues to link to conclusions on far left sites. I keep telling people to look it up themselves. You see I am never afraid of people coming to their own conclusions.

I encourage people to Search for themselves. We are a bright country.

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 7, 2007 5:45 PM
Comment #225210


A hot wife wouldn’t be that big a problem in the Bible Belt. A lot of us wouldn’t mind checking her for ticks.

What’s your comedic take on Ron Paul?

Posted by: bigkenzombie at July 7, 2007 5:56 PM
Comment #225211

Scottie, I’m giving the facts here. I have no idea what you are dealing in, but I certainly don’t need your lectures.
You think I made up that letter I posted out of whole cloth or something? Or that it was made up by some left leaning blog? Well, your assumption there is wrong.

“The facts are out there.

Find them!”

Yes, I’m very fond of fact finding. What are you fond of doing? Annoying people and trying to lecture to them?
That’s just a guess.

“define “widely””

Dictionaries are out there! Find one!
Oh never mind. I meant: extensively held opinion.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 7, 2007 6:14 PM
Comment #225214

Why do you guys get so miffed when I tell people to be independent, find the facts yourselves.

I wonder!

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 7, 2007 6:19 PM
Comment #225215


Hmm lessee… two first names? too sane to be a Republican?

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 7, 2007 6:21 PM
Comment #225216
A lot of us wouldn’t mind checking her for ticks.

It wouldn’t take long in that dress.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 7, 2007 6:24 PM
Comment #225223


Ron Paul could very well be too sane to be a Republican. At least the neocon variety. He’s anti Iraq war….against the Patriot Act. Of course he won’t be nominated.

Posted by: bigkenzombie at July 7, 2007 6:35 PM
Comment #225244

Lets see…family values…5-6 devorces on the Rep side,all involving adultery, and big 0 for the Dems? Is adultery still a sin?Beter ask the pope.
Whats Romney’s take on polygamy anyway?Is it ok if its not same sex?
To plagerize Robbin Williams,everyone thats been marraied long knows it ALWAYS the same sex.

Posted by: BillS at July 7, 2007 8:51 PM
Comment #225249

As I understand it, then Cardinal Ratzinger outlined a set of guidelines covering how individual clergy COULD deny communion to politicians who advanced policies that ran contrary to the teachings of the Catholic church. Kerry was never mentioned by name, and he was never actually denied communion by the clergy of his church. This was never a binding order to specifically deny communion to John Kerry.

Abortion is only one of those issues that run contrary to Catholic teachings, however. The Pope has also come out the Iraq war. Theoretically then, Catholic clergy could also deny communion to pro-war Catholics using the exact same guidelines Ratzinger proposed.

I have no idea how many people, even Catholics, actually vote according to the views of the Catholic Church (the “Christian right” as it’s come to be called is made up largely of Evangelical Protestants). But those who do are in a pickle. Can anybody name an anti-war, pro-life, anti-capital punishment presidential candidate? I sure can’t think of any.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at July 7, 2007 10:17 PM
Comment #225252

Very good!

Posted by: BillS at July 7, 2007 10:28 PM
Comment #225255

BillS, to answer your earlier question, Romney condemns polygamy (although ancestors of his were polygamists). As does the modern Mormon church, who will excommunicate anyone found to be practicing polygamy (though some fringe groups still do it here and there).

Polygamy, as I see it, is offensive mostly in the way it’s usually practiced—often with teenage brides who may not have much choice in the matter and who aren’t even of the age of consent. Apart from that, it’s mostly just a cultural bias. In most of Western culture we have a not-unreasonable distaste for the practice, but it’s still practiced in many cultures throughout the world.

I know I have a minority view about this, especially among Republicans, but for me it’s a lot like the issue of gay marriage. It’s not for me, but I don’t think the government has any business telling people who they can and can not marry. If all parties knowingly and independently want to enter into such an arrangement, and all are of legal age, then its nobody’s damn business but their own and everybody else should keep their noses out of it.

As I said, many cultures still practice it around the world, and the Bible—the foundation for Judaism and all the different versions of Christianity—is chock-full of polygamists.

Also, you’re not 100% right about the Democratic field. Kucinich has, I believe, been divorced twice. Republicans care about this issue—at least when it comes to voting—a lot less than Democrats seem to think. After all, the patron saint of Republican conservatives, Ronald Reagan, was himself a divorcee.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at July 7, 2007 10:53 PM
Comment #225283


The document specifically targets politicians who support legal abortion. Of course, it didn’t say “Kerry” anywhere. It didn’t have to.

Some quotes

A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia

Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 8, 2007 7:13 AM
Comment #225284
Can anybody name an anti-war, pro-life, anti-capital punishment presidential candidate? I sure can’t think of any.

Catholic voters certainly have MY permission to vote for Obama because of his anti-war stance.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 8, 2007 7:18 AM
Comment #225301

Thanks. I brought up divorce as a way to put the lie to Rep claims about “family values”.Smart Reps vote their wallets just like smart Dems.

I am with you on gay marriage. Believe me you are not alone among real conservatives on this. Some busybodies claim to be worried about the “sanctity” of marriage. Pivvil. Legal Marriage is a binding CIVIL contract. Last I looked the state is not in the business of sanctifying anything.That is the province of churches. All civil marriages are civil unions.

Posted by: BillS at July 8, 2007 11:37 AM
Comment #225446

Republicans can’t win? Never say can’t. Say shouldn’t win. It’s been proven that John Edwards can beat all Republican hopefuls to date. Let’s get rid of Hillary and Obama and stick with Edwards and give him the running mate of none other than Wesley K. Clark. Any comments?

Posted by: Mark Stewart at July 9, 2007 3:41 PM
Comment #225473

Romney seems to be the Al Gore of the Rpblcns. The LDS church may still be a barrier in some places. My understanding of the LDS church is that it was originally based on unitarianism, which is considered by some to be close to atheism. One UCC minister I know who is also a freemason, says that the LDS church is also based on freemasonry. Others are uncomfortable with the idea that a Joe Smith from 1830s New York can manufacture an entire religion.

On the way home on Memorial Day, I was approached by three young women, LDS missionaries from the church in Glenview IL. I guess there have been some advances in the last century and a half.

Ron Paul apparently belongs to the I got mine, screw you party.

I would rather see Jerry Orbach on the ballot, instead of Fred Thompson.

Posted by: ohrealy at July 9, 2007 5:10 PM
Comment #225626

Jack said: “A big part of leadership is acting and a big part of campaigning involves television. It is a useful skill, acting. We should not vote for anyone BECAUSE he is an actor, but neither should we hold it against them.”

We should vote for candidates willing to make it clear when they are ‘acting’ in the best interests of the nation, or, pursuing an action, for other motives. Honesty and integrity don’t require acting skills, and they are chief among my priorities for voting for a candidate.

Honesty is the absence of hiding what one knows when, what one knows, has bearing on what is being said.

Integrity is having done one’s homework in learning and thinking through a position and standing by it with the firm knowledge that it is the most defensible and likely option given the facts and reason of all alternatives examined.

A wide and diverse education is a prerequisite for integrity. That, or, a healthy respect for one’[s own limitations and refusal to enter endeavors where demands will not meet one’s abilities. The capacity to critically analyze is prerequisite. The ability to refrain from acting as if one knows when one doesn’t, as a short cut, is prerequisite. A command of the language is prerequisite.

However, all of these assembled together do not constitute integrity. A disciplined will to respond appropriately to any circumstance, regardless of other impulses is the rare and intangible quality that must also be present for integrity to develop in a mature person. And if it does, it is unmistakably recognized and admired by most.

These are the qualities the public recognizes in people like Ronald Reagan, Albert Einstein, Albert Schweitzer, FDR, and many of our founding fathers like George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton.

Persons of integrity are not immune to flaw and error. But, persons of integrity also handle flaw and error differently than most of the rest of us, when they find it in their actions. They acknowledge it and make amends as best can be, rather than shrinking from them and defending them under false pretenses. Even in error or flaw, a person of integrity is recognizable and respected by most as the better possibility for us all.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 10, 2007 10:13 AM
Comment #225821

That’s funny David,

Did you just try to redefine the word integrity?

1. Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.
2. The state of being unimpaired; soundness.
3. The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness.

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 11, 2007 12:59 PM
Comment #225822

“A wide and diverse education is a prerequisite for integrity”

We will let the readers decide this!


The quality or condition of being honest; integrity.

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 11, 2007 1:01 PM
Comment #225920

Leave it to you Scottie to quote other words from a dictionary rather than seek the truth of the meaning underlying them. I need not worry about your comments ever appearing in any philosophy texts, that’s for sure.

If I look up the word pedantic, would it say, See scottie1321 ? :-)

Do you think a dictionary definition of love or liberty can hope to capture the depth and meaning of the experience of those words, as To Kill a Mockingbird or V for Vendetta can?

Never mind, you probably do. Diversity is one of America’s great strengths. Thank you for your contribution to it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 11, 2007 6:41 PM
Comment #225927


You can rely on your phylosophy,

I’ll rely on fact.

Fact is : You do not have to have a wide and diverse education to have or even understand integrity.

I know how educated you are. we see it in all the high dollar words you use in your writing. You write very well. I can write that way too! In fact I test out at an IQ of 147. Not bragging, in fact hate to even put that out there. But that is one of the underlying fundementals of the far left. You have to explain because the common man is not smart enough to understand.

I happen to prefer to write as I speak. More of the so called “uneducated” can have access to my thoughts.

You have the right to over analyze and make everything a philosophical statement. Go ahead.

But I will not let the reader only have your statement that:

“A wide and diverse education is a prerequisite for integrity. That, or, a healthy respect for one’[s own limitations and refusal to enter endeavors where demands will not meet one’s abilities. The capacity to critically analyze is prerequisite. The ability to refrain from acting as if one knows when one doesn’t, as a short cut, is prerequisite. A command of the language is prerequisite.”

Without rebuttal.

But now that you opened up PHILOSOPHY, I would encourage the reader to do some quick research on the subject. Might be rather interesting.

Here is just some quik quotes from WikiPedia. The lefts favorite!

” [Philosophy is t]hat which grasps its own era in thought.”
— [[ Hegel]], Elements of the Philosophy of Rights; 1821

” [Philosophy is a]n interpretation of the world in order to change it.”
— [[ Karl Marx]], Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (quoted by Jonathan Wolff)

“… [philosophy] is the acquisition of knowledge.”
— [[Plato, Euthydemus, 288d.]], {{{3}}}

“… [that] philosophy only is the true one which reproduces most faithfully the statements of nature, and is written down, as it were, from nature’s dictation, so that it is nothing but a copy and a reflection of nature, and adds nothing of its own, but is merely a repetition and echo.”
— [[Francis Bacon]], The Enlargement of Science, 1. 2, ch. 3

Just a start.

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 11, 2007 7:47 PM
Comment #225928

And one more thing?

Are you telling me that My 5 year old niece cannot under stand the love we have for each other completely because she has not read to kill a mockingbird? Life and common sense is not as hard as you want to make it David. The average man has the ability to think and reason pretty well. We do not need and intellectually elite class to explain it to us.

But again, the reader can decide!

Posted by: scottie1321 at July 11, 2007 7:58 PM
Comment #226105

Scotti -

A good book from the right called Games People

Play, I highly recommend you read this BOOK!

———Look it up——-

Because Knowledge can be a great burden unless one

understands, on the techniques of Rhyme an Reason

along with how to play an when to fold.

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 12, 2007 7:48 PM
Comment #240555


Posted by: MUM AND DAD at December 11, 2007 5:52 PM
Post a comment