Posted on 09/04/2012 2:13:59 PM PDT by Eagle Forgotten
Former congressman Virgil Goode Jr. has qualified for the presidential ballot in Virginia, the State Board of Elections ruled Tuesday, adding a potential obstacle to Republican Mitt Romney’s hopes of winning the pivotal state.
The state Republican party has already challenged the eligibility of Goode, who is the Constitution Party’s nominee, and could still get him knocked off the ballot.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Nicecly done! FUMR!
MCB
Bang on. Again. Right down to the intellegent use of the Ron Paul forces (which I highly recommend) in a united and joint strike landed right up the kazoo of the Establishment Republican Socialists who have highjacked the Party apparatus, lock, stock and barrel, in order to shut out, shut up and generally slow up a conservative movement within the Republican Party.
Beginning November 7, we need a force and a plan.
Thanks rmlew.
You post there (at Catholicism.org). I don't.
It is good that Brown voted against Kagan. Did he also vote against Sotomayor? I have no idea. IF he did, he gets double credit. If he put a Senatorial "hold" on either or both candidacies, he gets still more credit. I don't know if he did that. WE need to employ the tactics of the Pat Leahys against THEIR nominees. Brown need not appear in Batman movies like Leahy but he ought to play hardball.
In any event, the night that Brown defeated Coakley, I was in a nursing home recovering from surgery (way out here in Illinois). I did not choose the nursing home. It was luck of the draw. The staff and numerous patients, including me, celebrated the news of his victory. There were high fives. None of saw him as perfect either but he made a positive impression by reminding brain-dead Coakley that they were seeking a Massachusetts Senate seat not Ted Kennedy's Senate seat. That does not mean he gets a lifetime free pass for policy depredations to be committed thereafter. I would certainly vote for him over Cherokee Liz. What on earth does Scott Brown have to do with the absolutely despicable Mittler using corrupt Wall Street $$$$ to BUY the GOP nomination???? I'll answer: Absolutely NOTHING! Brown is a guy of modest means who credibly drives a pickup, poses for cheesecake photos at some point and has generally avoided being a lifetime serial liar like Mittler. 2 out of 3 ain't bad! If he goes to Rolling Thunder next year on his own Harley, so much the better. If he brings Sarah Palin as his passenger, so much the better.
Is this Catholic.org a website of Feeneyites??? That would fit right in with being Paulistinians. Even Ron Paul is not personally responsible for every nut who supported him. As Reagan often said of Birchers and such: They supported me. That does not mean that I support them.
If the "A.L.L. crowd in Connecticut" (Are you referencing the Connecticut Right to Life Corporation on whose board I gladly served and which has always been the PRINCIPLED pro-life group in Connecticut???), "attacked Greenberg" who certainly seems to have been pro-life and supported "fake pro-lifer Bernier," I would need more info. You are there I am not. Billy O'Brien is a great and very principled guy who loses little sleep over often soul-sapping concepts like pragmatism. I have a vague recollection from news coverage that Bernier had previously supported and worked for a bad candidate (not a pro-lifer) but the details are gone. I certainly saw nothing in 2012 suggesting that Greenberg was a bad candidate on pro-life. If anything, he seemed good.
No conservative and no pro-lifer has any business whatsoever being ambivalent about Roraback who has every potential to be the next Weicker (albeit with less arrogance but then Attila the Hun was less arrogant than Lolo) or even the next Nancy Johnson which is nearly as bad. Roraback delenda est. Esty, likewise in spades. Voting in that race is like voting for Mittler or Obozo. Nope!
Who the hell is "Obsitnik?" Let me guess: another Gerry Labriola, Jr., special turd sandwich in the gold coast district??? I must not be foolish. I would use Roraback's remains to grease the treads of our tanks as Patton said of enemies in another context. I think his grand daughter is a nun at questionably Catholic but certainly quite conservative Regina Laudis in Bethlehem, likely in Roraback's district, and I would bet she will emulate Grandpa George when she votes. If Bethlehem is in the 4th, she can switch to opposing the RINO there. Choosing and acting is really not that hard.
I would vote for McMahon with little difficulty. Maybe she can put some serious wrestling moves on Blumenthal and put him out to some pasture where the grass is red.
Am I part of this "y'all" you reference in your last paragraph???? If so, I await your explanation.
You betcha!
"A house divided cannot stand." God will not do evil to do good and neither should we embark on a foolish attempt to do so. It may be right in your conscience, but I'm not voting your conscience; I'm voting mine.
I have to break this reply down into parts.
A. Linda McMahon.NRTL ran ads in her favor. NARAL warned she threatened a woman’s right to choose. She is the best we could ever expect statewide in CT. She’s not a Shays or a Simmons. In the end, if elected, I have no doubt she will disappoint us some of the time. I do not see any guarantee on her issue pages that she has pledged to oppose repeal of DOMA.
Scott Brown was not in the Senate for Sotomayer.
You are not part of the y’all. But there is a y’all that thinks that prudence is an optional virtue.
I didn’t try to apply Pavone’s letter to Mitt and I doubt that he did, it was from 1990.
MNJohnnie: The problem with this argument is Mitt is running for President of the United States, not just Mass. He is supposedly "conservative enough" or malleable enough that we can 'hold his feet to the fire' that we should vote for him because this week that's the 'real Mitt Romney.'
Yet he is that flexible and compromising that he was able to not just accept, but to push radical progressive agendas on nearly every major platform agenda. Hell, despite a nearly identical record fellow Massachusetts politician John F'n Kerry can at least say that he went to Vietnam.
Awarding Mitt the Presidency based on what he says he will do instead of what he has done (near opposite of his stated goals), is akin to awarding 0bama the Nobel based on what he wants to do rather than what he has done.
Further, there is not one one major agenda item that has come to a vote in which Romney has differed than 0bama. Not on guns, not on abortion, not on healthcare, not on amnesty, and not pork barrel spending.
Continuing to put up with the GOPE nonsense and hoping they'll do better next time is similar to staying with an abusive spouse because they truly do love us and really want to do better.
Matthew 23:7"And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."
failed to mention how many pro-lifers I run into who delight at bashing McMahon. Some have ceased and now support her. Failed to mention Mass Citizens for Life support for Scott Brown in ‘10. Excellent pro-family voting record in state house.
Exhibit B: New Hampshire #2
primary results 2010
Charlie Bass, NARAL 27,457
Jennifer Horn 22,868
‘10 nominee and pro-life Catholic radio talk show host
Robert Giuda, 11,145
grassroots pro-lifer, ran campaign in 1/2 the district
The A.L.L. affiliate supported Guida, bragging how nice it was to have 2 pro-lifers in the race.
Exhibit C:
Justin Bernier. Seemed to be fine young man. Suzio had fundraiser for him in ‘09 when he was only GOPer in CT-5 race. Then Caligiuri and Greenberg jumped in late. Bernier travels around Litchfield County touting himself as the only one of the 3 who was not a hard-line pro-lifer.
Says he does not believe in labels. Pro-Life, pro-choice. Wants to reduce number of abortions.
Forward to 2012, the duplicitous Bernier fails at the convention, finishing 4th. No longer needs support of delegates ... money dries up ... switches gears and suddenly campaigns as a pro-life Catholic family man. Volunteers at his headquarters call Catholic parish pro-life coordinators spreading the lie that Greenberg: a Jew who has been married 4 times. Bernier sends out nice brochures the final week with pictures of babies.
Bob Muckle supports Greenberg. Family Institute of CT supports Greenberg. Suzio - Greenberg
CT RTL support Bernier. O’Briens now tell me they are taking sabatical from politics.
results
Roraback 32%
Greenberg 27%
Lisa Wilson Foley 21%
Bernier 20%
what to do?
of course it is better if Esty wins.
reply #3 of 3
Exhibit D:
CT-4 2009 Senate votes 34 to 2 against Catholic Hospitals to require Plan B in ER. Sen Dan Debicella, pro-family Catholic is one of 2 dissenting votes.
NOW NAGS go balistic, hold tearful press conference in Debicella district.
Debicella runs for Congress in 2010. Silly pro-lifers join with teapartiers to bash Debicella as part of establishment. Debicella struggles to raise money in CT-4 among the elite due to his ethnic/religious ties.
Best chance at a decent congressman for that district ... dashed. Radical Himes re-elected 53%.
This years version of GOPer in CT-4
Steve Obsitnik for US Congress
“Women’s reproductive choice as well as education to reduce unplanned pregnancies”
http://www.obsitnik.com/article.html?aid=312
see #130
Only a complete moron would think 100% of nothing is better then 85% of something.
George W. Bush was the most pro-life president in our nation’s history, approving more executive orders, signing more laws, and using the bully pulpit more effectively than any other to send us down the road to end abortion someday. However, President Bush believed that abortion laws should have an exception for rape and incest, something with which I wholeheartedly disagree, given that the unborn child who is a product of rape or incest is no less human and no less deserving of the right to life.
When President Bush ran against Al Gore and John Kerry—two radical abortionists—I did not hesitate in supporting President Bush, even though he wasn’t as pro-life as I am. The reason is clear: either Bush or Gore (or Bush or Kerry) would be elected president, and only President Bush would make decisions based on a pro-life (albeit not 100% pro-life) mindset. If you think that I “chose evil” by supporting President Bush for the presidency (whom I hadn’t supported in the primaries, BTW; I voted for 100% pro-lifer Alan Keyes), then your mind is pretty messed up. If just 1% of pro-lifers in 2000 had written in Alan Keyes for the presidency or something like that, Al Gore would have been elected president and there would have been no Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, no Mexico City Policy, no prohibition on federal funding for embryo-destroying stem-cell research, dozens of additional pro-abortion federal judges and 6 (as opposed to 4) 100% pro-abortion Justices in the Supreme Court. We should not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
And, BTW, if you think that I support less-than-perfect candidates in the general election because a priest said that it was acceptable, you obviously don’t know squat about me, or about Roman Catholics in general.
Well, bully for you. You know where you can stick your anti-Catholic bias.
I don't have anti-Catholic bias. I have no problems with Catholics. I believe most are good people trying to adhere to the Word. However, I am trying to adhere to the Word as it speaks to me. I sent the clarifying Scripture because I realized how my post before could be construed.
My point is/was that just because clergy whether Catholic, Southern Baptist, what-have-you write a dissertation to justify wrongs, doesn't make it right.
I agree. I voted for President Bush as well. But, I wasn't voting for a "lesser of two evils" in my opinion. I believe George Bush was following his heart and trying to follow the Word of God; I don't feel lead that way about Mitt Romney. Also, President Bush is pro-RKBA; Mitt Romney is not. George Bush is pro-1man+1woman=marriage; Mitt Romney is not. George Bush was not afraid or ashamed to say the most influential person in his life was Jesus Christ; I haven't heard that from Mitt. George Bush is a big spender; so is Mitt Romney.
George Bush was not as pro-life as I would have liked; however, Mitt Romney ran in previous elections as pro-baby murder. His record is in support of baby murder. In this election Mitt has stated that he supports abortion in the cases where a woman's health is at risk. Does that mean to prevent morning sickness? What about headaches, back aches, or joint pain? It was intentionally ambiguous.
George Bush was not the most conservative President we've ever had, but he would be the 75-80% candidate. Comparing him to Mitt is an insult against the good causes President Bush championed.
If you think that I “chose evil” by supporting President Bush for the presidency (whom I hadn’t supported in the primaries, BTW; I voted for 100% pro-lifer Alan Keyes), then your mind is pretty messed up.
I don't think you chose evil by your vote. But I also take your vote in the context it is due (I laid out my viewpoint earlier). Mitt is not a 100% pro-lifer, an 80% pro-lifer, or even a 30% pro-lifer - he is not not pro-life at all....that is evil.
We should not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
I agree, but we should not call bad, good either. Mitt is not a good candidate. He is a snake in the grass that will say/do anything to get elected because it is "his turn." Or, to fill some Mormon "prophesey."
And, BTW, if you think that I support less-than-perfect candidates in the general election because a priest said that it was acceptable, you obviously don’t know squat about me, or about Roman Catholics in general.
Well, you got me there. You have an anonymous username, as do I, so I really don't know squat about you. But I do know that you posted a dissertation by a Catholic clergy member attempting to justify the acceptance of the lesser of two evils.....to me, that says you are justifying (at least in part) your vote for Mitt based on (some of) these principles. So far as Roman Catholics go, no I don't believe that they lock stock follow what a priest would say.
I am a Baptist, but would be deeply disgusted if people thought that meant I, or any others followed lock-stock (or hecll even at all) with the loons from Westboro Baptist (not saying the parish of the priest you posted is comparable to the idiots at WB).
My point is and has been, Mitt is not a pro-lifer; I cannot in good conscience support him or vote for him.
Mitt is pro-homo agenda; I cannot in good conscience support him or vote for him.
Mitt is pro-socialized medicine; I cannot in good conscience support him or vote for him.
Mitt is anti-RKBA; I cannot in good conscience support him or vote for him.
The GOP has sold out and chosen to spite and smite the base in order to make for a big tent. Say anything do anything and screw anything for a vote. They (I am categorically speaking of the GOPE Rovian types) no longer have any actual principles. They expect that the rest of us will compromise our values and principles; the things we hold most near and dear, and we will continue to vote for them. I cannot and will not support this.
Perhaps if you had taken the time to read my response you would know I stated that if I agreed with Romney on 85% of the issues I would be voting for him. Your childish insulting responses do not help your candidate, it only points out that even you cannot defend his positions.
How right you are. However, 85% of 0 is still 0. Mitt is pro-abort, anti-RKBA, pro-homo agenda, and a big government spender.
I support 100% of NOTHING Mitt is for.....ie, I am pro-life, pro-RKBA, anti-homo agenda, and believe in fiscal conservatism. Mitt does no meet 85% of that, or 65%, or 35%, or 5%.
Well if you are not a Leftist clown pretending to be an uber Conservatives, stop being a complete political moron.
Nice ad-hominem. By the way, of all the platforms I and other posters have listed, please provide examples of how Mitt has DEMONSTRATED himself to be even the 50% candidate....let alone the 85% candidate you tout him as.
Please, let us all see his pro-RKBA stance and support for legislation, or repeal of antigun laws.
Please let us see where he championed against abortion, you know vice the $50 (now free) abortions that he atually helped force through.
Please show us where he championed for traditional marrieage. One piece of legislation he supported...please educate us.
Please show us where he has been fiscally conservative as an Executor....
Please show he is even a 50% candidate. Saying someone is a political idiot isn't demonstrating anything substantive. Denying the truth in spite of the facts and name calling in defense of Mitt just because he is ABO or has an (R) after his name says more about your political idiocy than it ever will mine.
BTW brownie points if you can somehow get to the 85% you claim him as.
I, as a Catholic, agree with you and disagree with him on this statement and agree with you or anyone else who recognizes that we can not do evil to achieve good and that each of us must vote his/her own conscience and not someone else's.
The Catholic Church is a very large institution and doctrinally speaking, Fr. Pavone is pretty low on the food chain, whatever his role with Priests for Life. AND we have near the top even cardinals who are rank disgraces. OTOH, we are fond of remembering that your Savior and mine did not establish a Church exclusively for saints but also for sinners (because He loved sinners in His infinite way) from the outset like Peter who cut off the servant's ear, and doubting Thomas and, ummmm, Judas, each of whom were privileged to be in His inner circle.
Whatever your specific faith, you are quite evidently a thoughtful person and solid pro-lifer. Most Catholics are your allies and not your enemies.
May God bless you and yours!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.