Wednesday, December 23, 2015
On the Donald and the GOPe
Labels: election
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Nice win for Rand Paul in Kentucky!
The way the parties control the political process you about have to take over a party from the grassroots up to change anything, and that has to happen on a state-by-state basis.
Third party activity is actually counterproductive. The winner-take-all approach to elections and the inability of third parties to change election laws at the state level precludes 3rd parties from anything but the spoiler role. The Paul win is nice, but just winning an election changes nothing where it counts. Our dumbed down electorate will continue to suck down Kool-Aid and return the same old progressives to power, albeit with different names, more often than not.
Democracy ensures the election of the best panderers, and the best panderers are big gummint "progressives." Rand Paul, like his father, will likely be just another exception that proves the rule.
Labels: election
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
The fate of a turncoat...
I don't know why he thought he was going to get any loyalty from the folks he'd been beating in elections for so long, much less from Obama. They got what they wanted from him. He got no less than what he deserved.
So long, it's been good to know ya!
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Proof that not ALL National Review Online...
columnists have gone over to the dark side - endorse Romney? Are you kidding me?
John Derbyshire endorses Ron Paul:
If you think that our efforts against jihadist terrorism constitute World War Four (I don't), you will not want Ron Paul for president. (Jonah Goldberg's article "The Tradition of Ron Paul" in the Dec. 17 issue of National Review is key reading in that context.) If you think there would be a whole world of difference between what Hillary Clinton would accomplish in the Rome-of-the-Borgias down there on the Potomac, by comparison with what Rudy, or Fred, or Mitt would accomplish, you won't be supporting Paul.
If, however, you think that much of the underbrush that has grown up around our national institutions this past 40 years needs to by pulled up by the roots and burned, before it chokes the life out of our Republic, then Paul's your man.
There isn't much difference between idling over a cliff or going hell bent for election - over the cliff you'll go. Better to stop before you get to the edge and reverse course. As C.S. Lewis has said: if we've taken the wrong path, the true progressive is the one who turns back first.
Friday, November 30, 2007
It is not enough to be free...
I originally received this in an e-mail message in October of '04. Given the approaching primaries and election and the ever increasing hostility to religion in the public sphere as seen in the recent rise of the "new atheists" - Dawkins, Harris and their ilk - I thought this was worth dusting off:
Our motivation in beginning the work of the Acton Institute almost 15 years ago was to make a concerted, intelligent and faithful effort to promote and secure what we have repeatedly called 'the free and virtuous society.' It is my conviction that both these elements are necessary if we want society to be worthy of human dignity.
The element of freedom is critical because the human person is created with a destiny beyond this world, which requires his liberty to seek and pursue. It seems to me to follow logically then that interventions of a political nature must be limited, not merely for reasons of efficiency - that things would work better - but also, and more importantly, for reasons of morality. Man must be free to pursue his destiny because that is what he was created for. Religious freedom, as well as the freedom of enterprise, logically flow from this idea. We call for the minimization of taxes, regulations and other forms of control, at the same time as we call for the freedom of expression and assembly and the like, even when, at times, we do not agree with those expressions.
This is where virtue comes in.
It is not enough for people to be free; the more profound question is: What ought I do with my freedom? In many ways, religion, faith, commitment to God and lives of integrity and virtue, help in the construction of a society that promotes generosity, moral accountability, stability and peace. For these reasons, it is astounding to me that in the course of the political discussion over the past few months, and especially in the last few days, numerous intellectuals, editorial writers and journalists insist on identifying the integration of faith, character, values and morality with theocracy.
There appears to be a literal panic in some quarters that if religion influences the social and political decisions that Americans make in the coming days, the values of tolerance and pluralism (rightly understood), will disappear. I believe the opposite is the case and that in order to protect so free and prosperous a society, a clear moral vision and commitment is an essential part of the political debate. In a land where liberty is prized, only the intolerant would forbid the expression of this clear moral vision.
I know enough about politics (though I am not a member of any political party) to know that you cannot bring the kingdom of God to earth by means of it; and as valuable as democracy is as a process, a majority vote cannot determine the truth of a thing.
So my rule of thumb in evaluating platforms, policies and candidates is: Will this promote liberty (which is the highest political end of man)? And will it protect human life, especially when vulnerable? This leaves lots of room for prudence, of course, and Lord knows, plenty of room for debate.
One of the greatest models of how to live the tension of being in the world yet not of it, was Thomas More, the great English statesman. In his life, writings and martyrdom we see a man who witnessed to the "inalienable dignity of man's conscience" while remaining faithful to legitimate authority and political institutions. It was he who said that "man cannot be separated from God, nor can the affairs of state be separated from morality..."
Rev. Robert Sirico
President & Co-founder
The mission of the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty is to promote a free and virtuous society characterized by individual liberty and sustained by religious principles.
Copyright (c) 2004 Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and LibertyActon Institute * 161 Ottawa N.W., Suite 301 * Grand Rapids, MI 49503Telephone: 616/454-3080 * Facsimile: 616/454-9454
Labels: Acton, economics, election, liberty, religion
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Sometimes the good guys lose...
Going south to the city of Frankfort, Incumbent Republican Don Stock lost by about 100 votes to Independent Chris Pippenger. Pippenger received 1164 votes. 1067 people voted for Stock. - wlfi.com
As a non-resident of Frankfort, I really didn't have a dog in the hunt for mayor, but I have to say that I think the city of Frankfort made a mistake by not re-electing Don Stock. I consider Don a friend, and have been privileged to teach CCD with him on Sundays and to play Devil's advocate in discussions concerning the many issues facing Frankfort.
I have seen Mayor Stock grow as a person and as a mayor over the past couple of years. I think Chris Pippenger has a long learning curve - and a huge dose of reality - coming. I wish him well. I suspect Don, being the decent man I know him to be, will, in the end, come to see this loss as a blessing in disguise.
Frankfort is a city of 18000 or so and the county seat for Clinton county; 2869 people came out to vote in the mayoral election.
****
Politics is a much different animal when it becomes personal. I wouldn't be caught dead voting for a national Democrat and have only reluctantly pulled the lever for the occasional Republican. I have pulled the lever for both parties in races where I have personally known the candidates I voted for to be men of quality and honor. I've never had the chance to cast a vote for Don Stock. I would have been more than pleased to do so.
Even if he was a damned Republicrat.
Labels: election
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
