Some Clarification
First, Sen. Brownback:
I am still, at this point, supporting Sen. Brownback's candidacy for President.
I am not convinced that he supports torture to "save American lives", and there is some doubt as to the context in which he made the comments that some have said indicate he condones torture under such circumstances. All that I have done is to ask that Sen. Brownback clarify his position on the issue, and that he, like Sen. McCain and Rep. Paul, unequivocally condemn the use of torture.
It is still my belief that Sen. Brownback is far-and-away the best candidate in either the Republican or Democrat field, and that his policy preferences come closer than anyone else's to being consistent with the teachings of the Church.
Next, Rep. Paul:
Yesterday, I mentioned Rep. Paul as someone I might be able to support. Again, I need to be convinced that he isn't some sort of isolationist or knee-jerk pacificst before I could ever get behind the guy's candidacy.
I'm certainly not going to get my hackles up over some 11-year-old questionable statements that appeared in the guy's newsletter. Especially when the Democrats are running a guy who said just a couple months ago that what sets Barrack Obama apart from other blacks is that he is "clean and articulate".
The Captain Eds and Michelle Malkins are really reaching in trying to tar this guy. Who are they supporting, by the way? I'm guessing Giuliani.
Let me just say this: If you believe that Ron Paul DOES NOT deserve a spot on the stage in a GOP debate but that Rudy Giuliani DOES, you better go back and check your conservative credentials.
Finally, Sen. McCain:
Despite his strong stand against torture, under no circumstances will I support this guy.
Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
I Must Admit ...
My Message to Sen. Sam Brownback
Labels: Brownback, Catholic Social Teaching, Elections, Republicans, RINOs, Rudy
posted by Pro Ecclesia 8:08 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
My fear with Brownback is that he'll turn out to be another Alan Keyes: someone who speaks really well on some really important issues but for whatever reason refuses to every become a really serious candidate.
Now, let me say, I think Brownback already comes with more experience and better preformance than Keyes ever had, but after watching people like Keyes and Buchanon implode in the past, I guess I have certain fears about people who look like purity candidates.
Of the front runners, I cannot see voting for Giuliani (though the reason he gets to stand on the stage is obvious -- a lot of registered Republicans have said they'd consider voting for him) but I'm reserving judgement on McCain. I don't like him, and I think he's shaky on some things, but if he was the nominee I think I'd almost certainly vote for him in the general election.
I'm not saying Rudy doesn't deserve a spot on the state. He obviously does.
I just find it ironic that it's the supporters of the most liberal Republican candidate in recent memory that think Paul is the one who is so far outside the Republican mainstream as to be excluded from the debates.
On a strictly pessimistic note, it would be better for McCain to lose the general than Brownback since McCain is hardly identified with social conservatives or the "religious right"; therefore his loss couldn't easily be attributed to a national backlash against us.
I don't see a lot of call for Ron Paul to be excluded except for some guy in Michigan. The only reason to exclude him is the same reason to exclude Tommy Thompson, Jim Gillmore, and Duncan Hunter (who I like, by the way): they are unlikely to get more than about 1-2% of the vote.
I do think we need to whittle these debates down, but perhaps the best way to do that is to hold several debates with only a cross-section of the field. For instance, one night hold a debate with Giuliani, Brownback and Thompson, then one a few nights later with Paul, McCain, and Gillmore, and then one with the rest on another night. It's hard to really get much out of these debates when you've got 10 - probably soon to be 12 - men on the stage.
I find Paul more palatable than Giuliani, but that's not saying much. I don't think the newsletter comments should be brushed aside so easily, and his explanation really doesn't cut it. But frankly I don't care enough about the guy to get worked up either way.
The big difference between Brownback and others like Keyes or Buchanan is that Brownback has held elective office. He held a statewide office in Kansas before being elected to Congress and the Senate.
Keyes and Buchanan both wanted the Presidency to be an entry-level position.
As for Ron Paul, I grew out of Libertarianism long ago; government has a legitimate function, and the federal government should step in to prevent states from doing unjust things, like permit slavery or abortion. Paul is pro-life, but only insofar as it doesn't conflict with his federalist tendencies.
I agree with you about Paul's libertarianism. As I wrote yesterday,
"Don't most serious people "graduate" from libertarianism roughly about the same time they graduate from college (or, in my case, law school)? At the very least, by the time you've had your first kid, libertarianism should be nothing more than a youthful utopian fantasy you believed in back when you had no real-world responsibilities."
I don't think anyone should be excluded from the debate. Paul Zummo has a good suggestion, and I think mixing up the debate in several different ways, along those lines (2 or 3 at a time, but giving each a chance to appear with each of the others), though for most voters, that would get pretty tedious. Better yet, have a series of primaries, to narrow the field down.
I'll remind you that torture really needs to be defined, and I don't think it's such a black and white answer. When American lives are in grave danger, the legitimacy of using certain techniques to obtain information from a terrorist might be increased, depending on the gravity of the threat. This isn't as black and white as the intentional killing of innocent children.
Ron Paul is not a pacifist. He served in the Air Force for 20 years. (He was a flight surgeon in Vietnam I believe). He is actually in favor of a strong national defense and believes we should only go to war when we are attacked or to defend a critical national interest. Pretty much the same view held by many many Republicans, past and present and pretty close to the Just War doctrine. I would not call him an isolationist as he favors free trade and diplomacy with other countries. He's not a protectionist though he opposes NAFTA and CAFTA on national sovererignity grounds.
As for libertarianism, I think there are degrees of libertarianism and I consider myself a "soft" libertarian--I think the feds should get out of education but I don't want to privatize the highways. I would never do drugs but I think the War on Drugs is a dismal failure. I don't want the government running my life or spying on me. I think that we should not do things that are not authorized in the Constitution. I believe that family, community, and culture are better solutions to our problems than some government program. I think the government should only pass laws to protect people from being deprived of life, liberty or property by fear, force or fraud.
I am 53 years old and consider myself a mature, thinking, well informed Catholic and in some respects agree with Chesterton's philosophy of distributism. Obviously, I am not your 20 year old dope smoking atheist type libertarian and neither is Ron Paul. That's why I like him for Prez even though he has a snowball's chance in Hell. I like Brownback too provided he's not really for torture, but face it, any Republican has a snowball's chance in 2008. The Republican party is going to be toast due to Bush, the war, and the immigration bill.
Post a Comment
<< Home