Monday, February 11, 2008

Mitigated McCain

In the space of about 12 hours, I think I received about six requests to explain my current leanings with regard to the race for the GOP nomination. These have come both orally and written, from Huckabee, McCain and Paul supporters and neutral people alike.

Let me just say it: I would support McCain over Paul or Huckabee. As many people are prone to do in a primary situation, I released a lot of vitriol at McCain in the last few weeks -- I was almost carried away to the point of siding with Ann Coulter, who says she would campaign for Hillary over McCain.

Normally, it would go against the grain to support a senator over a governor as a candidate. However, Huckabee has demonstrated so much ineptitude for real leadership, and sleazy campaign tactics reminiscent of Slick Willy himself that I find it hard to give him the benefit of the doubt when I see his list of endorsements and his endless list of ethics complaints.

He also didn't win much respect in my eyes with his trilogy of gaffs over just one foreign policy issue: Pakistan. He apologized for the Bhutto assassination, claimed Pakistanis made up the largest chunk illegal immigrants next to Mexicans and also claimed it too early to say whether martial law should “continue” in Pakistan, even though martial law had been lifted two weeks previous -- oh, and who can for get his geographical challenged statements regarding the "western border" of Pakistan. Whew!

And finally, any conservative should stop and think if Phillys Schlafly had this to say about him: "He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles."

I've already spent enough time on Ron Paul. So I'll quickly state why I'm ready to settle for McCain: In short, it is because of Sen. Tom Coburn. I'd encourage you to watch his speech at CPAC introducing McCain last week. I am familiar with Mr. Coburn and good reason to respect his opinion. Coburn is the benchmark of fiscal conservatism in the Senate. I had the pleasure of hearing him speak in D.C. while at the Eagle Forum collegiate summit a couple years ago. I think many conservatives were convinced by Coburn's speech and I encourage you to watch it yourself.

I did not caucus for anyone. Take it or leave it, I didn't think it would truly serve anyone's interest to any serious degree. And since I believe the only motivation we should have for being involved should be concern for our neighbor's wellbeing, I found I my time was better spent on other things.

Please remember, fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, even though we may disagree on these things, I hope we can be of one mind sufficiently enough to keep us from getting carried away in the rush to idolize these things. God is still God. All authority belongs to Him. "The king's (president's) heart is in the hand of the Lord, like the rivers of water...He turns it wherever he wishes."

Don't forget that the real agent of change in this world is not the public servant, not the senator, not the president... The real agent of change is the Church, as we faithfully proclaim Christ to the world by our words and actions.

Author's note: here are the links for my three postings touching on Ron Paul.
Ron Paul regression
Ron Paul regression part 2
A dead, but instructive, horse


<< Home 4 Comments:
Blogger iMurphy said...

I'm glad you didn't succumb to Rush/Ingraham fever. I almost did. McCain has done some major flub ups but if we care at all about the 50 million aborted babies of the last 30 years or our survival against terrorism, he's a darn sight better then Clinbama.

12:39 PM, February 12, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello fellows/Mark,

Coming in a little bit late on all the discussion, I understand there's been plenty of political gab going on around here. So, I just noticed your summary dismissal of Ron Paul, especially pertaining to the article by Mark Alexander.( "A dead, but instructive, horse") Aside from the fact that he doesn't even give a succinct reason for his dismissal of Ron Paul, other than convoluted arguments that delve into definitions that do nothing but needlessly complicate things, he does a great job of dancing around the actual issues. He never asked the pertinent question, "Why?" "Why did Ron Paul do that?" Why..didn't he ask that question?

Now, though you may not agree with me now, I respectfully ask you to view the following video, and take note of the areas that I have noted following. Please ignore for right now any 'Ron Paul bias' that there may be slightly associated for right now, and listen to it for what it is: Ronald Reagan, republican, conservative, and statesman--speaking his heart out on the issues. (Huh--try finding any candidate talking that way nowadays! PC-ness is the rule of order--don't talk about anything that might label yourself, or your paycheck won't be comin')

As I mentioned above, here are some notable areas in the video to pay attention too:
1:54, along with the preceding Cuban's story;
2:30--up or down--now, that's something that most people don't think of! How true!;
2:50-"trade freedom for security"--did you know Reagan actually said that?;
3:30 and on for a while. Listen to it, for a great lecture, from a real Republican.
5:10--a real laugh!! From Reagan. I loved it. 'The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant--it's just that they know so much that isn't true.'
6:24--Wow!! Did I hear right?
8:17. No comment.
Favorite quote: '...actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing we'll see to eternal life here on this earth.'

I won't provide any more timing notes, as it's hard to pick out anything in particular--the whole thing is totally, 'Reagan'!

That above video reminds me of a time--when Americans were educated, responsible, morally upright, and true examples of the citizens that make any nation great. I'm not saying they aren't now--just look around yourselves, at the papers, the news, the TV, the movies.. need I say more?

There are not many men and women today who dare to stand up for truth and change back to the simple principles of freedom, yet those few who do dare to stand and be ridiculed deserve our unending support and gratitude. Think of the local police officers, firemen, and more--where would YOU be if they were not there? What about your job, that you may enjoy, if they were not there? They are there to protect our FREEDOM to live how we wish, within moral constraints, and it is our duty to ensure FREEDOM for our posterity and all future generations. I care not what the man's name is, or what his color is, or what his nationality is--if he understands the basic principle that freedom, and only freedom(coupled with Christianity), can produce a country like ours, a country that for two centuries was regarded as THE nation.
Whoever that man is that is brave enough to say so and stand for the truth, he deserves my support and gratitude, if I myself am unable to stand with him.

Enough said, may the Lord guide you all, and grant you a blessed afternoon!
Ethan N.

1:22 in the video! A quick final note: on another run through the video, that really caught attention.

2:23 PM, February 14, 2008  
Blogger Mark said...

Thanks for posting. There is a reason I titled that other post "A dead, but instructive, horse" and that is because I had already posted at length on my disagreements with Mr. Paul in two other separate postings. I would encourage you to read those if you want more specific arguments. The purpose of the Alexander link was not to confuse, but to break it down to a values argument. You can argue all you want about Reagan, issues and funny lines and the question "why" (a particular point where you lost me), but Alexander's point was to DEFINE Ron Paul and libertarianism as a basic principle. He didn't really make Mr. Paul the issue. At issue was his values. What does it mean to be libertarian instead of conservative. This is a very important distinction which you need to address if you are planning to criticize Alexander.

For anything else related to Ron Paul as a candidate, please read my posts to that end.

I'll put them in the body of this post (see above).

12:08 PM, February 16, 2008  
Blogger Poindexter P. Parkenfarker said...

Remember friends,
As Reagan has said on many occasions, " If we agree 80% of the time, well that's good enough for me."

It seems that many folks forgot Reagan's eleventh commandment during this 'primary' season and McCain and Paul took some of the worst bashings. I was with Duncan Hunter most of the way, and don't give up hope yet, my Ron Paul friends, but it is pretty likely that McCain will be our boy this time. There are many areas where I disagree with him, except for the most important one. Defending Western Culture from a Wahhabist Caliphate. No matter how collectivism rears it's ugly head, be it Communist, socialist, progressive, or extreme violent fundamentalist dogma, collectivism is the enemy of all free men.
I sure would like to see Paul in a position of the federal reserve somewhere, he does have anexcellent grasp of monetary policy, but is not who I would prefer to have as Commander in Chief of our armed forces.

It's great that we all disagree on the possible candidates and solutions! but I still think that Reagan's eleventh commandment holds, "speak no ill of a fellow Republican."

But as for Hillobama,
collectivism is the enemy of all free men. -Lt. Buck Compton (great man, if you get a chance to meet him. he's got a book coming out real soon.)

7:12 PM, February 22, 2008  

Post a Comment