McCain: "I'm proud that we have Justice Alito and Roberts on the United States Supreme Court." ... [And when asked whether he admires any Supreme Court justice in particular] "Of course, Antonin Scalia."
Huckabee: "My own personal hero on the court is Scalia."
Romney: "I think the justices that President Bush has appointed are exactly spot-on. I think Justice Roberts and Justice Alito are exactly the kind of justices America needs."
Giuliani: "I will nominate strict constructionist judges with respect for the rule of law and a proven fidelity to the Constitution -- judges in the mold of Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, and Chief Justice Roberts."
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
To me, I am just as fearful of a Democratic President paired with a Democratic Congress. Both parties have lost sight of their Constitutional mandates and this is nothing but a free-for-all(except for the citizens, of course)for power. I also don't think it an anomaly that many younger voters are tired of the same two parties. They haven't been imbued with the same dyed-in-the-wool love of these political hegemonys as their parents have been. Their bullshit meters are more acute(probably because they have had less time being bombarded with the political lies and more time with the ironic cynicism of todays credibility culture. What are Romney's numbers with the 18-25 age group anyway?)When you hear about Ron Paul and the college crowd invariably you get the question, "Why aren't we hearing more about Dr. Paul?" I'll bet they know the answer deep down that the Republicans are scared shitless and want nothing to do with him because of course he would(if he realistically could)cut the big powerline which flows directly into D.C.
This is the question I would put to you all. If given the chance to ask one question put to ALL the candidates, what would that question be. Mine would be,
Since we all know how far President Bush has pushed the power of the Presidency passed the Constitutional boundaries set forth in our Founding Document, to in effect create a BALANCE between the three equal branches, would you in your Presidency return the office to the strict mandate of the Constitution and reject permanently the extra powers Bush, and many before him, has put upon the other two branches and the citizenry or will you use these new found powers to further your agenda, whatever that may be?
I like your question!
I like your question, too, Bawdy. And I would assume that the only one who would answer "yes I would" is Ron Paul. I like what I hear when I listen to Ron Paul. I am on the same wavelength as he is on many issues using his current statements as a barometer. However, I worry about him because there are all of these undercurrents of "crazy" running just beneath the surface with Dr. Paul: the racism accusations from his newsletters (which he claims never to have read even though they are Ron Paul newsletters); his "association" with radio programs frequented by the tin-foil hat people; and so on. I would assume if he gets treated seriously these things will come to light and be exposed as real or fraud, but I don't think he'll get that far (could be wrong, hope I'm wrong).
Another good question would be:
Our country is in debt and we continue to deficit spend. Do you view this as a big problem, and if so, how, specifically, would you correct this problem?
I get a little of that Ron Paul stuff too, mainly from the right wing. That would either lead me to believe they are smearing him out of fear because he is running as a Republican or because they know he is on the right track and they are not. Libertarians, which Paul really is, have always attracted the slightly touched or are slightly touched themselves(and I include myself in this description, I will let you guys pick which)mainly because they(we)are not part of the mainstream. And I think mainstream media and the two parties themselves want to keep this picture of libertarians as crazy because it suits their purpose; to keep the whole pie to themselves. As polarizing as their two party system has become, the worst thing in the political universe for them would be somebody who thought outside the box and could relate that to the voting public.
And, again, even though I am pulling for Paul, I will say I do not agree 100% with his platform(for one thing, he is pro-life(but I bet he is a federalist about it)), but I would add(and this is for all posters)do any of the candidates hit every note for all of you?
Nope, there isn't a single candidate who expresses all of my issues. I never expect there will be, either.
How about this question: Do you think that we have a genuine need for the Electoral College?
Here is a link to the racist Ron Paul newsletter story (from CNN).
I think this is the story that got CNN interested in it in the first place (from the New Republic).
I don't think that Paul is a racist, anti-Semite, or homophobe today, but I question his judgement in allowing such shit to be written in his newsletters. If a racist or homophobic or anti-semitic remark came up on this blog I'd immediately post against it. I know, blogs aren't the same as written newsletters, but I would never have allowed a written newsletter to go out under my name with such horrific statements in it.
I still admire many of Paul's positions, I just wish that he was more worthy of personal admiration. I think he's too "out there" to be president.
Good question, Bob. You bring up a very good point. All of the wingeing and wringing of hands about our electoral system that followed the 2000 elections seems to have just disappeared. This country has such a damn short attention span, doesn't it?
I have heard various rationales for why we have the Electoral College, but to me the point is very simple, and the biggest reason I have lost all faith in the electoral system: Any individual's vote is not actually for the person they are told they are voting for. They are in fact choosing someone on a committee that has the power to override that individual's stated choice.
If my vote for...Marvin the Martian, let's say, isn't actually a direct vote then what's the point? There's this huge spectacle and buildup for months and years, but when it's all boiled down, the only votes that actually count are those of a committee (I have no idea how big the EC is)that has this (to me) absurd power to just ignore the will of the people and impose their own decision.
That's why I'm not voting for anyone.
I'm sorry to hear that, Bob. You do know that it is very rare that an electoral delegate does not vote for the candidate s/he is aligned with, right?
I always hate hearing about intelligent folks not voting. We need your vote, Bob, to help cancel out the great unwashed. (And I don't know, or care, who you would vote for... knowing you in the blogosphere is enough to convince me that people like you should be voting!)
Oh, yes, I know that. I have no illusions that there is a cackling cabal gathering to juggle votes. I just find the whole thing deceptive and in a way insulting. I also tend to be cynical or pessimistic enough to be severely skeptical of any politician of any stripe actually producing any sizable changes.
Bob,
I can't think of many on this site more cynical than myself, but you will see me in line voting. If Ron Paul has the Republican nomination(not likely)I will vote for him. If he has taken his treasure trove and run as a third party candidate(more likely), I will vote for him. If he isn't in the running, I will vote for whomever the Libertarians put up. In the end though, I will have voted. My personal belief is the best we can hope for is a split government, most likely that would entail a Republican President and a Democratic Congress as the Dems aren't likely to lose Congress. Because a federal government that does nothing will leave the real hard work to the people who know how to get it done, the citizens.
Post a Comment