Palin, "the new Ronald Reagan?"

[Taco John]

Aides to George W.Bush, former Reagan White House staff and friends of John McCain have all told The Sunday Telegraph that they not only expect to lose on November 4, but also believe that Mr Obama is poised to win a crushing mandate.

They believe he will be powerful enough to remake the American political landscape with even more ease than Ronald Reagan did in 1980.

The prospect of an electoral rout has unleashed a bitter bout of recriminations both within the McCain campaign and the wider conservative movement, over who is to blame and what should be done to salvage the party's future.

Mr McCain is now facing calls for him to sacrifice his own dwindling White House hopes and focus on saving vulnerable Republican Senate seats which are up for grabs on the same day.

Their fear is that Democrat candidates riding on Mr Obama's popularity may win the nine extra seats they need in the Senate to give them unfettered power in Congress.

If the Democrat majority in the Senate is big enough - at least 60 seats to 40 - the Republicans will be unable to block legislation by use of a traditional filibuster - talking until legislation runs out of time. No president has had the support of such a majority since Jimmy Carter won the 1976 election. President Reagan achieved his political transformation partly through the power of his personality.

David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, told The Sunday Telegraph that Republicans should now concentrate all their fire on "the need for balanced government".

"It's hard to see a turnaround in the White House race," he said. "This could look like an ideological as well as a party victory if we're not careful. It could be 1980 in reverse.

"With this huge new role for federal government in the economy, the possibility for mischief making is very, very great. One man should not have a monopoly of political and financial power. That's very dangerous."

In North Carolina, where Senator Elizabeth Dole seems set to loose, Republicans are running adverts that appear to take an Obama victory for granted, warning that the Democrat will have a "blank cheque" if her rival Kay Hagen wins. "These liberals want complete control of government in a time of crisis," the narrator says. "All branches of Government. No checks and balances."

Democrats lead in eight of the 12 competitive Senate races and need just nine gains to reach their target of 60. Even Mitch McConnell, the leader of Senate Republicans, is at risk in Kentucky, normally a rock solid red state.

A private memo on the likely result of the congressional elections, leaked to Politico, has the Republicans losing 37 seats.

Ed Rollins, who masterminded Ronald Reagan's second victory in 1984, said the election is already over and predicted: "This is going to turn into a landslide."

A former White House official who still advises President Bush told The Sunday Telegraph: "McCain hasn't won independents, nor has he inspired the base. It's the worst of all worlds. He is dragging everyone else down with him. He needs to deploy people and money to salvage what we can in Congress."

The prospect of defeat has unleashed what insiders describe as an "every man for himself" culture within the McCain campaign, with aides in a "circular firing squad" as blame is assigned.

More profoundly, it sparked the first salvoes in a Republican civil war with echoes of Tory infighting during their years in the political wilderness.

One wing believes the party has to emulate David Cameron, by adapting the issues to fight on and the positions they hold, while the other believes that a back to basics approach will reconnect with heartland voters and ensure success. Modernisers fear that would leave Republicans marginalised, like the Tories were during the Iain Duncan Smith years, condemning them to opposition for a decade.

Mr Frum argues that just as America is changing, so the Republican Party must adapt its economic message and find more to say about healthcare and the environment if it is to survive.

He said: "I don't know that there's a lot of realism in the Republican Party. We have an economic message that is largely irrelevant to most people.

"Cutting personal tax rates is not the answer to everything. The Bush years were largely prosperous but while national income was up the numbers for most individuals were not. Republicans find that a hard fact to process."

Other Republicans have jumped ship completely. Ken Adelman, a Pentagon adviser on the Iraq war, Matthew Dowd, who was Mr Bush's chief re-election strategist, and Scott McClellan, Mr Bush's former press secretary, have all endorsed Mr Obama.

But the real bile has been saved for those conservatives who have balked at the selection of Sarah Palin.

In addition to Mr Frum, who thinks her not ready to be president, Peggy Noonan, Ronald Reagan's greatest speechwriter and a columnist with the Wall Street Journal, condemned Mr McCain's running mate as a "symptom and expression of a new vulgarisation of American politics." Conservative columnist David Brooks called her a "fatal cancer to the Republican Party".

The backlash that ensued last week revealed the fault lines of the coming civil war.

Rush Limbaugh, the doyen of right wing talk radio hosts, denounced Noonan, Brooks and Frum. Neconservative writer Charles Krauthammer condemned "the rush of wet-fingered conservatives leaping to Barack Obama", while fellow columnist Tony Blankley said that instead of collaborating in heralding Mr Obama's arrival they should be fighting "in a struggle to the political death for the soul of the country".

During the primaries the Democratic Party was bitterly divided between Barack Obama's "latte liberals" and Hillary Clinton's heartland supporters, but now the same cultural division threatens to tear the Republican Party apart.

Jim Nuzzo, a White House aide to the first President Bush, dismissed Mrs Palin's critics as "cocktail party conservatives" who "give aid and comfort to the enemy".

He told The Sunday Telegraph: "There's going to be a bloodbath. A lot of people are going to be excommunicated. David Brooks and David Frum and Peggy Noonan are dead people in the Republican Party. The litmus test will be: where did you stand on Palin?"

Mr Frum thinks that Mrs Palin's brand of cultural conservatism appeals only to a dwindling number of voters.

He said: "She emerges from this election as the probable frontrunner for the 2012 nomination. Her supporters vastly outnumber her critics. But it will be extremely difficult for her to win the presidency."

Mr Nuzzo, who believes this election is not a re-run of the 1980 Reagan revolution but of 1976, when an ageing Gerald Ford lost a close contest and then ceded the leadership of the Republican Party to Mr Reagan.

He said: "Win or lose, there is a ready made conservative candidate waiting in the wings. Sarah Palin is not the new Iain Duncan Smith, she is the new Ronald Reagan." On the accuracy of that judgment, perhaps, rests the future of the Republican Party.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...the-party.html

[Ugly Duck]

Originally Posted by cdcox

I voted against Ronald Reagan twice because I judged him to not be smart enough to be president. I changed my opinion on his ability to be president (he was a good one) but I never changed my opinion about his intelligence.

I considered W to be the new Rondald Reagan. Dumb as a rock, but could connect with people. Surround him with experienced grown-ups and, bingo, you have a successful presidency.

I've learned my lesson. Reagan was a once in the history of the US phenomenon. We can't afford any more dumbasses in the oval office.

I agree with everything except the "good president" part. He was a TERRIBLE president.... and we finally see the end result of Reaganomic deregulate-&-let-the-market-police-itself trickle-down bullcrap. Life is good when you just live off the national credit card & wait for someone else to pay off your bills - until it all comes crashing down. Go unions! Go regulation!

[Saggysack]

So no one can tell me what Reagan's lasting positive accomplishments are?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Saggysack

So no one can tell me what Reagan's lasting positive accomplishments are?

The Taliban.

[Saggysack]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

The Taliban.

Eh, it's only a brush fire. Keep fanning.

[Jenson71]

Originally Posted by KCJohnny

Thank God Frederick Douglass and Hyman Beecher didn't take a position like that about the abolition of slavery. I do not look to the state, but to the people to correct the cultural injustices in our society. the government however is explicitly involved in many of the pathologies, chiefly abortion and no-fault divorce, sex-ed indoctrination and the indoctrination in evolutionary theory.

My question to you is had there not been conservatives in government during those 40 years, how much worse would our situation be now?

Johnny,

I'm not saying you should give up on the abortion issue. I'm not giving up. I just say giving up this absurd thinking that whichever party hates abortion the loudest actually cares the most and will cause the most change. I think women have a right to know, and people have the responsibility to tell, the dangers of abortion, mentally and physically. There should be more outreach to promote adoption and understanding abstinence, and what good can come from that. About 20% of women list "can not afford" as their reason for abortion. These women should know about adoption.

The first thing pro-life proponents should realize is that everyone but themselves thinks it's ridiculous to be pro-life and pro-death penalty. You can't promote a culture of life with the latter. This doesn't mean you have to be easy on the murderers. But practically speaking, it costs more to have someone sentenced to death, it's not a real crime deterrent, no one feels good about it, and it doesn't help pro-life stances.

As I'm sure you realize, this is our Catholic stance as well - against abortion, against death penalty.

You look to the state to help you. The problem is the other half who believe in their right to choose also look to the state! Now what? Now you focus on battles instead of true change, which comes with education and a culture of love and life. Now you give your life for the Party, instead of for your country. Now you become a talking head, free advertising, and a mindless following sheep.

How much worse would be off? I think we'd be the same. Abortion was higher under Reagan than Clinton. Does this mean Reagan caused more abortions? No. It's the culture that should be considered "conservative" in this regard.

And why the anti-evolution tripe? As a Catholic, you are well in your right to promote reason and knowledge in scientific inquiry, which concludes that evolution is real. There is nothing anti-Catholic about evolution. Again, this is an Evangelical position, that creeps its way into Catholic thought.

[NewChief]

Originally Posted by Saggysack

So no one can tell me what Reagan's lasting positive accomplishments are?

He shit out freedom and wiped his butt with the Communist Manifesto!

[KCJohnny]

Originally Posted by Jenson71

Johnny,

I'm not saying you should give up on the abortion issue. I'm not giving up. I just say giving up this absurd thinking that whichever party hates abortion the loudest actually cares the most and will cause the most change. I think women have a right to know, and people have the responsibility to tell, the dangers of abortion, mentally and physically. There should be more outreach to promote adoption and understanding abstinence, and what good can come from that. About 20% of women list "can not afford" as their reason for abortion. These women should know about adoption.

The first thing pro-life proponents should realize is that everyone but themselves thinks it's ridiculous to be pro-life and pro-death penalty. You can't promote a culture of life with the latter. This doesn't mean you have to be easy on the murderers. But practically speaking, it costs more to have someone sentenced to death, it's not a real crime deterrent, no one feels good about it, and it doesn't help pro-life stances.

As I'm sure you realize, this is our Catholic stance as well - against abortion, against death penalty.

You look to the state to help you. The problem is the other half who believe in their right to choose also look to the state! Now what? Now you focus on battles instead of true change, which comes with education and a culture of love and life. Now you give your life for the Party, instead of for your country. Now you become a talking head, free advertising, and a mindless following sheep.

How much worse would be off? I think we'd be the same. Abortion was higher under Reagan than Clinton. Does this mean Reagan caused more abortions? No. It's the culture that should be considered "conservative" in this regard.

And why the anti-evolution tripe? As a Catholic, you are well in your right to promote reason and knowledge in scientific inquiry, which concludes that evolution is real. There is nothing anti-Catholic about evolution. Again, this is an Evangelical position, that creeps its way into Catholic thought.

1. Conflating innocent babies with capital criminals is deceitful and very, very convenient for pro-abortionists.

2. The Roman Catholic Church does not oppose the death penalty and you know it. CCC 2266 and St. Paul's Letter to the Romans chapter 13.

3. The Church does not, can not and will not endorse the teaching of evolution. See: Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis.

Now you give your life for the Party, instead of for your country. Now you become a talking head, free advertising, and a mindless following sheep.

Mr. Jensen, I am a Soldier, a Patriot, one who has hazarded his life for his country. And I did it because of my Catholic Christian faith. I have been called many things before, but never a mindless following sheep. I arrived at my convictions through much suffering, prayer and diligent study. If you only knew.

Your dimunition of the gravity of abortion is deeply disappointing. Your remarks about economic viability/vulenerability as an excuse for abortion is very troubling. But if you do embrace the [unproven/unprovable] theory of darwinism, you have no need to bother your conscience with any moral dimension to infanticide. After all, that is just the impersonal forces of nature choosing the fittest to survive.

[Sully]

So, KCJ, you're just going to ignore my article, huh?

[Jenson71]

Originally Posted by KCJohnny

1. Conflating innocent babies with capital criminals is deceitful and very, very convenient for pro-abortionists.

I'm not combining anything. I agree with our Bishops who have resoundly declared that abortion is morally worse than the death penalty. I also acknowledge that pro-choice people think it's ridiculously hypocritical to be pro-life and pro-death penalty. When this becomes a roadblock for solutions, it's morally better to allow people to live in all cases.

2. The Roman Catholic Church does not oppose the death penalty and you know it. CCC 2266 and St. Paul's Letter to the Romans chapter 13.

Thank you for providing the proof that the Church has spoken against the death penalty in the Catechism:

"Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.""

Because of our prison system, we do not need the death penalty. A prisoner in our system can be effecitively prevented from crime without ending his life.

I don't see at all in Romans 13 where the death penalty is even spoken of. Can you be more specific?

3. The Church does not, can not and will not endorse the teaching of evolution. See: Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis.

Humani Generis does not speak out against evolution. Please be more specific in case I'm missing it. Why would the Church endorse the theory of evolution? Do they endorse the theory of gravity? No. Evolution is true, though. And it doesn't need the Church's endorsement, even though it has been accepted by Popes, priests, and theologians many times.

Mr. Jensen, I am a Soldier, a Patriot, one who has hazarded his life for his country. And I did it because of my Catholic Christian faith. I have been called many things before, but never a mindless following sheep. I arrived at my convictions through much suffering, prayer and diligent study. If you only knew.

Do not tell me that suffering, prayer, and study has led you to believe that the Republican party is the defenders of Christ. That's sickening. And your service, though admirable, does not give you any more weight in this regard. It's irrelevant for these purposes.

Your dimunition of the gravity of abortion is deeply disappointing. Your remarks about economic viability/vulenerability as an excuse for abortion is very troubling. But if you do embrace the [unproven/unprovable] theory of darwinism, you have no need to bother your conscience with any moral dimension to infanticide. After all, that is just the impersonal forces of nature choosing the fittest to survive.

I have to point out that people use it as an excuse. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it's reality. The facts say it.

Evolution is also reality. It is not a moral theory. It is science. We do not abandon morality in any philosophy, but we have to acknowledge what is real. Why would we not? Catholics believe in human reason. Catholics acknowledge the greatness of natural science. That is is fundamental to Western Civilization. We have no battle with science, i.e. what is true and real. We understand that faith without reason is incomplete. That science paints a whole picture of human life that we are grateful for. Part of this is our understanding of how our natural world and the living elements of our world change. Who can deny this truism from Heraclitus - change underlies all things. As a Catholic, you have the liberty to understand that reason has dictated in this element of life - that evolution is real; and you can believe that God has a part in evolution, as so many do now.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Jenson71

I'm not combining anything. I agree with our Bishops who have resoundly declared that abortion is morally worse than the death penalty. I also acknowledge that pro-choice people think it's ridiculously hypocritical to be pro-life and pro-death penalty. When this becomes a roadblock for solutions, it's morally better to allow people to live in all cases.



Thank you for providing the proof that the Church has spoken against the death penalty in the Catechism:

"Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.""

Because of our prison system, we do not need the death penalty. A prisoner in our system can be effecitively prevented from crime without ending his life.

I don't see at all in Romans 13 where the death penalty is even spoken of. Can you be more specific?



Humani Generis does not speak out against evolution. Why would the Church endorse the theory of evolution? Do they endorse the theory of gravity? No. Evolution is true.



Do not tell me that suffering, prayer, and study has led you to believe that the Republican party is the defenders of Christ. That's sickening. And your service, though admirable, does not give you any more weight in this regard. It's irrelevant for these purposes.



I have to point out that people use it as an excuse. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it's reality. The facts say it.

Evolution is also reality. It is not a moral theory. It is science. We do not abandon morality in any philosophy, but we have to acknowledge what is real.

I'm going to imagine that you get an avalanche of rep for this post.

Score one for the Religious Left.

[KCJohnny]

Originally Posted by Jenson71

Thank you for providing the proof that the Church has spoken against the death penalty in the Catechism:

"Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.""

Because of our prison system, we do not need the death penalty. A prisoner in our system can be effecitively prevented from crime without ending his life.

I don't see at all in Romans 13 where the death penalty is even spoken of. Can you be more specific?

Romans 13

Submission to the Authorities

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.

Or are you unaware that the authorities St. Paul is refferring to here is the Roman Empire? The same Roman Empire that crucified Christ?

CCC 2267:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

Convenient that you left that out...

And you are way out on a limb on evolution. Humani Generis rejects the theory of polygenism and maintains that evolutionary theory is unproven. Divine revelation is primary; all so called science must be subject to the Magisterium.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

So according to Romans 13:1, Nazi Germany was codified by God, and the people of the Third Reich were correct to subjugate themselves to the rule of Hitler's law, no? And the Khmer Rouge? The Indonesians in East Timor? Charles Taylor in Liberia? Pinochet? Franco? Ceaucescu? the Shah? Saddam?

Romans 13:2 would lead me to believe that the Founding Fathers would be condemned to Hell for the audacity to stand up against the institutions of God, and they to, are in effect, waging a Holy War.

We are a nation of idolaters, ladies and gents.

I can't wait to give James Madison five in the pits of Hell.

WOO WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Damn, I wish I had a time machine. I'd go back to 1995 and hack up some Tutsis with a machete. After all, I should be commended by God, because I would be doing what the Hutu commanders asked of me.

[Jenson71]

Originally Posted by KCJohnny

Or are you unaware that the authorities St. Paul is refferring to here is the Roman Empire? The same Roman Empire that crucified Christ?

I am aware. Do you believe the Catholic Church thinks God institutes governments? If the government can do no wrong, because they are following in God's path - then why would we ever fight abortion?

Convenient that you left that out...

Convenient that you don't highlight the rest of that sentence. How can you rip that quote out of its context like that?

And you are way out on a limb on evolution. Humani Generis rejects the theory of polygenism and maintains that evolutionary theory is unproven. Divine revelation is primary; all so called science must be subject to the Magisterium.

Polygenism - fine. Evolution - "evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences" That's not saying you can't believe in evolution. I feel you are adding your own thoughts into this Encyclical, effectively twisting it to say what you want it to, KCJohnny.

[Jenson71]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

I'm going to imagine that you get an avalanche of rep for this post.

Score one for the Religious Left.

Thanks Hamas, but I stand for no movement but Catholicism in religion, which I view as neither Right nor Left.

KCJohnny seems to think there is a battle between faith and reason. Catholics should really have no problem with this.