THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: I've been getting asked who I would vote for in the upcoming Republican presidential primaries. I've decided to make my picks known to anyone who might be interested. I base this list on fidelity to the Social Doctrines of the Catholic Church and what I view to be the lesser of evils from among the available GOP candidates. So for President of the United States these are my picks....
1st Choice - Ron Paul
2nd Choice - Rick Santorum
3rd Choice - Michelle Bachman
4th Choice - Newt Gingrich
5th Choice - Satan himself !
6th Choice - Mitt Romney
7th Choice - Rick Perry
18 comments; post here:
I think your 4th, 6th and 7th choices could be in any order, for they are basically the same person. As for your 5th choice - yea, I'd say he is in the right position.
1st Mr. Santorum
2nd Mrs. Bachmann
3rd Dr. Paul
4th Mr. Perry
5th Mr. Huntsman
6th Mr. Romney
7th Mr. Gingrich
I can't for the life of me understand why you would favor Ron Paul. I live in his district and I tell you from experience he ain't the man. If anyone was going to select a candidate that was true to physical conservative values and the Catholic faith it would be Rick Santorum.
He has shown extraordinary courage in defending our youngest neighbors in the womb against the slaughter unleashed by legal abortion. This is a man who has been "savaged" by some on the fringe of the radical homosexual equivalency movement - in the most vile manner. He has had his name intentionally defamed - but has not backed down. He has not stopped insisting on the unchangeable truth about marriage and the family and society founded upon it- because he knows it is true and that the truth does not change.
He understands that the free market is only free when it respects the freedom of human persons. His answer to the economic challenges we face is to enlarge the circle of participation - not to grow the federal government and, to use the old expression, "rob Peter to pay Paul." He is a proponent of small and limited government, and is not anti-government. He knows that the family is the first government and that all other government must defer to, support and not usurp its exercise of governance. He supports the choice of parents as to where to send their children to school, no matter what their economic circumstances. He and his wife have chosen to homeschool and they understand that the family is the first school and parents the first teachers.He is not only using the language of "pro-family" voters. He, his wife, and their children are the very embodiment of the message we proclaim. He respects the proper role of mediating institutions such as churches, synagogues, charities, social concerned business, trade and philanthropic associations. He understands that good government starts from the bottom up and then - and then with caution - proceeds from there. He is an advocate of limited government properly understood within the principle of subsidiarity. And much, much more.
You, yourself have spoke on subsidiarity and Santorum is right on spot. Why you'd choose a nut case like Paul is beyond me.
In answer to your question Anonymous, in supporting Ron Paul I am supporting the Constitutional Republic established by the founding fathers, and in support of Christians in the Middle East who are being slaughtered thanks to US foriegn policy. For these reasons I believe Ron Paul is the best candidate for the job description.
Have said that, I admit that while Paul is most qualified for the job, Rick Santorum is the favourite son, and nobody here is denying him the credit that is due for the couragous stand he has taken on the issues. Santorum is my second choice for good reason.
My only choice is Dr. Ron Paul.
You made a good choice.
True, Ron Paul is one of only a few members of Congress who always votes according to his principles, and truly believes in Constitutional limits on the power of government. On spending, on taxes, on freedom from an overbearing government, he’s great. I also agree for the most part with his take on foreign aid, and in always putting America first.
Where I disagree with Ron Paul, in domestic terms, is in his inability to compromise or rally anyone to his side to get anything accomplished. He’s a go-it-alone, all-or-nothing kind of guy. It’s admirable in a sense, but also unhelpful, to vote against every bill because it happens to fund a federal education plan, or because it contains a million dollar grant to Uganda. At a certain point, you have to vote on the best bill you can get; bills are never going to come out of Congress perfect. Because he will never bend, most of his votes are essentially meaningless and counter-productive.
On foreign policy and trade, I disagree totally with Ron Paul. He is an isolationist and is against free trade, while I believe that 9/11 calls for increased involvement (at least diplomatically) and more trade with other nations.
Some of Paul’s inability to bend spills over into defense and security issues, as well. He votes against bills that help Government detect and fight terrorism, arguing that they mean more government invasion of our privacy. A fair concern, to be sure, but ultimately unjustified in my view. For me, it reveals that Ron Paul has the right ideas but the wrong priorities, especially in our current fight against terrorism. I think his policies would make us less safe, more vulnerable, less able to detect and respond to terrorist groups.
I’ve read some of his articles and speeches, and he also seems to be a bit of a conspiracy nut. And so it doesn’t surprise me that the people supporting him most, at least around here, are the John Birchers, the folks who think 9/11 was an “inside job,” people who think everything they disagree with is “unconstitutional,” etc. That's why I think he's a "nut case".
No offense, though, if you like him. Because, like I said, he does have some good qualities. But I would think Santorum would have been your number one.
Anonymous number one, if Ron Paul is such a "nut case' why do the people in your district keep re-electing him? Are they "nutcases too"?
The sad fact is, out of all the candidates, Romney is the one who most likely has the best chance of beating Obama in a general election.
How I wish Huckabee had run!
If Romney gets the nomination, Obama will destroy him. I am certain of this. Romney cannot beat Obama.
So that's why you rated Obama # 5 on your list, with Romney at # 6?
I've not compared any candidate to Satan, not even Obama. When I said the devil I meant the devil himself. It was a sarcastic joke - sort of.
Check out this interview that Rick did with NBC Today.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45814317/ns/today-today_people/#.TwFswDWXRYp
He publicly admitted that he follows the teachings of the Catholic Church on contraception. That is incredible. In all my life I have never heard a priest give a homily on the immorality of contraception and here we have a very courageous politician defend a very unpopular teaching of the Catholic Church to a national audience. I know his foreign policy positions are controversial with many Catholics and I have some concerns myself but they are all in the realm of prudential judgement in my opinion while his social position including the connection between morality and economics and the need to support manufacturing in the USA are very consistent with Catholic Social teaching and so he is my first choice.
My main problem with Ron Paul is that his solution to the abortion and marriage debates is to return them to the states which I strongly disagree. I believe like Rick Santorum that the abortion and marriage questions need to be resolved at the federal level and not just returned to the states.
Claudio, we need to return the abortion and marriage issue to the states, and take it out of the hands of the federal government.The national government has no constitutional powers to regulate marriage or abortion. Marriage and abortion, under the ten amendment, is the state's responsibility, not the federal government's.
I'm calling it right now: the GOP ticket for 2012 will be Romney-Santorum (with maybe a wink and a hint Gingrich will be tapped for Secretary of State).
Not my ideal ticket. I'd prefer Gingrich-Santorum or Gingrich-Rubio.
Democrat candidates will promise to give money to a certain group. GOP candidates (neo cons) will promise to bomb others (see Rick Santorum's interview on 'meet the press' the man was all about bombing Iran (pray tell me fellow 'conservatives' where that is in the constitution?) CIA Bin Laden unit leader is backing Dr Paul. Why? B/c he understands its b/c of our foreign policy of policing the world that creates terrorists (think about it. If China had a base in your backyard & enforced sanctions wouldn't you be upset at them? Fight them? Try to kick them out? I bet you would).
Great interview from fellow Catholic on Patriot Radio on XMradio on this 'Santorum surge" well worth the time to listen http://www.mikechurch.com/Public-Transcripts/post-show-show-with-kevin-gutzman.html
Here's chief CIA Bin Laden unit Michael Scheuer ...Scheuer writes, “Any other Republican candidate or a reelected Obama will keep lying to Americans by claiming that we are being attacked because of our liberties, gender-equality laws, and elections rather than because of Washington’s constant intervention in the Islamic world. This now two-decade-old lie – which is abetted by most of the media – has hidden from Americans the fact that all of the would-be Islamist attackers who have been captured in this country were motivated by the invasion of Iraq, U.S. support for Israel, or some other U.S. government action in the Muslim world.”
While Santorum's social conservative positions are admirable, his foreign policy is essentially Clinton-Bush-Obama Redux. Paul may not be ideal in the sense that it would be nice to have the Feds come to their senses about abortion, etc., but that is unlikely to happen. Paul will nominate Constitutionalists, if the opportunity presents, and he is the least likely to compromise in that department. A true COnstitutionalist will return the issue to the states (Scalia's position) or ban it outright (what I believe Thomas' position to be, and incidentally, the one with which I agree). At this point, returning the issues to the states is about the best we could do.
With Paul, you get a reasonable position on social issues, without the foreign policy catastrophies.
Unfortunately, my gut tells me we are in for four more years of the O.
C Matt, I can't argue with your appraisal. I am extremely disappointed with Santorum on the issue of foreign policy. His position flies in the face of everything Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI have taught us. It is very un-Catholic. On the issue of abortion, his formerly spotless record has been stained by his support of Spector. On the issue of federalism (Subsidiarity) he has supported some big-government solutions. All and all, he reminds me a lot of G.W. Bush. Maybe that's an improvement for a lot of people. I'll leave that up for the voters to decide. One thing Catholics should NOT do is vote for him thinking they're getting good Catholic policy. They're not! What they'll be getting is good Republican policy (G.W. Bush style) and nothing more or less than that. Again, that may be an improvement for some people, but the jury is still out with me. Had Santorum's political record matched his personal life, that would be a different story. I would support him 100% with banners waving. Unfortunately it does not. I understand Santorum is a different man, a better man, in his parish and in his home. In political office however, there is much to be desired. The only reason why I support him as my second choice is because the rest are no better, and at least with Santorum, political pressure from the Vatican might possibly carry more weight with Santorum than any of the other candidates. When pressured to choose between the Holy Father and his Wall Street backers, Santorum might be faced with a tougher decision. With the exception of Ron Paul, the other candidates wouldn't give a crap what the pope says.
Yes, in all likelihood, Barack Obama will be re-elected, unless he does something to piss off his Wall Street donors. So far, there is no indication of that. If the stock market crashes big time in 2012, with no immediate rebound, than all bets are off. That's how it really works. Wall Street owns and operates Washington DC. Never forget that.
Think the Knights prediction at the end of his last comment is unfortunately on the money. I'd bet on that too.
Also, to all that keep saying they want a federal solution to abortion. Pray tell me where is the evidence in the past 30+ yrs? Sir Knight has a great post on states stepping up & ending abortion at the state level. Why not? if we had let the states do this many states would have stopped it. But, alas, we see everything as centralized issues blanketing the entire land mass. We aren't to be a centralized gov't & we are too big to be ruled by a city on one side of the continent.
Post a Comment