The End Of Conservatism?

Cartoon by Mike Ramirez

I’m very disappointed in the results of the South Carolina primary and frustrated with GOP voters and pundits.

This article has things right, though: Whose Primaries Are They?

I believe that Fred Thompson’s campaign, while perhaps disorganized and imperfect, was derailed not only by liberals in the media, who sought to marginalize him as irrelevant, not really interested in being president, not having “fire in his belly”, etc., but also by GOP voters, particularly evangelical Christians, whose loyalty to Huckabee (without concern for his liberal positions and record) has ended up hurting the party.

Huckabee won’t get the nomination, but his ambition to be the Republican nominee (without fidelity to conservative principles) has left us with choices I can’t accept and don’t feel I can support.

I believe Dr. James Dobson hurt Fred Thompson with his negative remarks about him before he even got in the race. Ann Coulter also attacked Fred Thompson. Ann's problem with Fred was that he did not vote to impeach or remove Clinton (which she apparently views as unforgivable, despite the fact that removing Clinton would have made Al Gore the incumbent prior to the 2000 election; whereas she’ll forgive Mitt Romney for being pro-abortion until he ran for president – which is shocking, coming from Ann, who is solidly pro-life).

I also think endless criticism by conservatives of the way Fred Thompson's campaign has been run wasn't productive at all. All that's done is make people afraid to waste their time supporting the only real, consistent, conservative, pro-life candidate, endorsed by the National Right To Life Committee, in the race. Great work!

Even the relatively few legitimate gripes and/or critiques conservative pundits have expressed about Fred Thompson pale in comparison to the glaring problems in the records of every other Republican candidate in the race (with the possible exception of Duncan Hunter).

Many conservatives have already thrown their support to Mitt Romney (like Ann Coulter, Hugh Hewitt, and the National Review - the links note their endorsements), despite Romney's liberal record and consistent pro-abortion record (prior to his decision to run for the Republican presidential nomination), and that's extremely disappointing to me, because I respect and admire Ann Coulter & Hugh Hewitt and although I have less respect for the National Review, I recognize the power of their endorsement. (See: Romney's liberal shadow, Mitt Romney: A Massachusetts Liberal for President, The Real Romney?, The Mitt Romney Deception, and McCain Runs Through Mitt Romney's Liberal Laundry List)

I will not vote for John McCain – ever. His support for embryonic stem cell research makes him an unacceptable candidate for all Catholics from a moral point of view. Some Catholics will try to fudge on this, but they'll be going against Church teaching if they support McCain as the nominee or advise other Catholics to be open to doing so. It's that simple.

Here's a quote demonstrating McCain's position on the issue of embryonic stem cell research:

Q: Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?

John McCain: I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It's a tough issue. I support federal funding.

Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007

If John McCain is the nominee, I will not vote for him. Period. If conservatives want to abandon conservatism, they can do it without my help.

I realize Republicans will lecture me that McCain’s better than any Democrat, but I don’t see that. I see a man who has consistently hurt the GOP (see: The Real McCain Record), and who stood with Democrats in the gang of fourteen over the most important issue for me in presidential elections – the appointment of conservative Supreme Court justices. I won’t trust a man like that to make good judicial appointments.

If John McCain (or Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, or Mitt Romney - whose conversion to conservatism is opportunistic, too little, and too late) is the Republican nominee, I will conclude that the voters within the Republican party have abandoned its values and are only interested in holding on to power.

Power without principle is a value of liberal Democrats, not conservative Republicans.

I can't support the Republican party becoming a party of power-hungry people who will sell out their values after checking polls in order to hold on to power. How is that any different from the Clintons?

Moderate is a euphemism for an unprincipled person whose highest value is human respect.

I do not trust John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, or Mitt Romney with the ability to make good appointments to the Supreme Court, which is my fundamental concern in electing a president.

We are too close, and Republicans who are allowing the mainstream media to tell them which candidate to support and which one has the best chances, are selling the GOP, conservative values, solid Supreme Court appointments, and the future of conservatism up the river by refusing to stick to conservative principles and go with the most conservative, pro-life candidate.

I will not vote for Mike Huckabee in the primaries, because he's not a conservative. He destroyed the Republican party in Arkansas, largely by consistently endorsing policies at odds with conservative principles, sparking infighting within the party. (See: Up and down Huckabee's y-axis) The Republican party in Arkansas isn't endorsing Mike Huckabee, they're endorsing Fred Thompson. (See: Arkansas Republican Assembly Endorses Fred Thompson)

This is very hard for me, because Mike Huckabee is pro-life, and I do want to end legal abortion, but I don’t trust Huckabee to appoint good justices (because of his history on judicial appointments) and that's all a pro-life president can do to end abortion. Huckabee says the Constitution is a “living, breathing document”. That's not conservative, and it doesn't bode well for those hoping to get good judicial appointments out of Huckabee. Strict constructionists don't think the Constitution is a “living, breathing document”.

I don't think Huckabee could win in a general election anyway. I don’t think he’ll even get the Republican nomination. All he’s done is weaken the genuinely conservative candidate, paving the way for John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney.

I will not vote for Mitt Romney. I don’t believe he’s pro-life. He supported abortion as recently as two or three years before running for president. He’s donated money to Planned Parenthood. He’s attended their fundraisers. He may claim to have converted, but not enough time has elapsed. He’s got a history of flip-flopping and not being forthright (which was a bad thing for John Kerry, but is supposedly suddenly okay for Romney).

I'm all for people converting to the realization that abortion is murder, but I'm not comfortable with elevating someone who gave money to Planned Parenthood (which is, to me, like giving Hitler money to help pay for the Zyclon B) to the position of Republican presidential nominee so soon after his "conversion".

Yes, I am aware Romney supporters often compare Romney's support for abortion with Ronald Reagan's record, and it's unfortunately true that Reagan allowed abortion in California before Roe vs. Wade (I know because I was born in Los Angeles in 1970 and my mother, who had German Measles, was repeatedly advised by several doctors, including an obstetrician she worked for, to abort me - and it was perfectly legal in California at the time and in those circumstances - thank God my mother never considered abortion a moral option - unlike Mitt Romney did, even after fathering five children). I know that later, though I'm not sure when, Reagan did realize it was wrong, but I also know he didn't change his mind right before running for President of the United States, unlike Mitt Romney.

Romney's Mormonism will also be an issue. Sorry people don't don't like to hear that, but it's true.

Many Christians will struggle with the idea that it speaks to a person's judgment when they remain in a religion with bizarre beliefs, which is why suggesting the religion of an elected official shouldn't matter is absurd (especially when nobody bats an eye at the suggestion that telegenic people are electable - which really shouldn't matter, but does).

Think about it, would you elect a president from the Moonies?

How about a satanist? If religion doesn't matter, satanism shouldn't be a problem, right?

If a satanist is unacceptable, then religion does matter, doesn't it?

The point I'm making isn't that Christianity is true and Mormonism isn't (though that's obviously my belief); the point I'm making is that you can't fault Christians for not wanting a Mormon, and the same folks who'll only get behind someone who is "electable" and telegenic should have also realized that Mormonism isn't going to play well with lots and lots of people, and it's their right to vote for anyone based on any criteria they choose. They're not limited by the criteria you or I might hope or expect of them, otherwise Democrats would never get elected!

Fantasies about inquisitions against Mormon candidates (or other candidates due to their religious convictions), while dramatic, ignore the reality that people choose to vote for or against candidates for any number of reasons.

Some people will vote for (or against) Hillary because she's a woman. Some people will vote for (or against) Obama because he's black. Some people will vote for (or against) Huckabee because he's an evangelical Christian.

It's a reality. Talk of inquisitions doesn't magically erase that fact, and the reality is that many Christians are not impressed by arguments that Mormonism shouldn't be a factor when considering Romney's candidacy.

Note that I haven't said it's good that people won't vote for Romney because he's Mormon, I'm only saying it's a reality and it's going to have a more significant impact than Romney's acolytes pretend.

I also think that because of the fact that Mitt's Mormonism doesn't play well with a lot of the base, especially given the precarious situation of the Supreme Court (which can be tipped either way and almost certainly will be by whoever is elected President of the United States next), toying with the idea of supporting him is almost as dangerous as toying with the idea of supporting Giuliani and/or McCain, in terms of whether or not such candidates can ensure the support of the Republican base. We need a conservative who can get the support of the whole base. It's not a smart time to test the tolerance of the base.

The fact that Mormonism allows abortion in certain instances is enough reason for me not to support any Mormon for elected office, and it's a perfectly legitimate reason to consider his Mormon faith. Why would a pro-life voter support a candidate whose religion, a religion they publicly embrace and claim to believe in, allows abortion under certain circumstances, much less ignore that fact because it's not politically correct? (See: Abortion: Who Teaches The Truth?)

However fair or unfair it may be, complaining about it won't change the fact that Mitt’s Mormonism will matter. The Democrats will use it and it’s already a problem for many Christians (myself included). It’s got nothing to do with prejudice. It’s to do with knowledge of what Mormonism involves, not just in terms of doctrine, but also in terms of cronyism. Having lived in Utah for two years, I don’t want a Mormon president and don’t want Mormonism to become more acceptable in the mainstream – no matter how many pundits, even ones I love, like Ann Coulter, Hugh Hewitt, and Peggy Noonan tell me otherwise.

Saying Mormonism doesn't matter is more than just religious indifferentism (although it is that too), it's insulting to Christians and signals that those who say such things either think religion is all nonsense, so what does it matter what brand of nonsense it is (which isn't a good way to endear Christians), or that the person making the comment doesn't understand that Mormons aren't Christians, because Mormons are polytheists, reject belief in the Holy Trinity, reject belief in the Divinity of Christ, believe many strange things about Jesus Christ, almost all of which are offensive to Christians, don't believe in the eternity of hell, believe in and practice baptism of the dead, and believe that God the Father has a physical body (which they believe he used to physically impregnate the Virgin Mary) and lives with his wife on a planet near the star Kolob. Mormon beliefs are bizarre and wholly incompatible with Christianity, and these bizarre and incompatible beliefs (see: Mormon Stumpers) will be used by the Democrats if Mitt Romney is the nominee – mark my words.

South Park already had a field day with Mormon teachings and the problems with the Book of Mormon, as can be seen in the three videos available at Comedy Central for Episode 712, "All About Mormons?"

Replies which compare authentic Christian doctrine (the Divinity of Christ, the Virgin birth of Christ, the Resurrection, etc.) with goofy man-made doctrines from various religions will indicate the sort of religious indifferentism I mentioned before.

Here is a brief video summary of some elements of Mormon theology:

I will not vote for Rudy Giuliani. He’s not a conservative. He’s pro-abortion, in favor of legal recognition for homosexual unions, supports gun control, and has a poor record on the issue of illegal immigration.

Fred Thomson was the only candidate I could support. If he’s not the nominee, I can’t vote Republican. I won't contribute to the destruction of conservatism. I won't vote Democrat either. Since I live in California, the Democratic nominee will get California in the general election anyway, even if I were to capitulate and sell out my conservative values by voting for a candidate who will further tarnish the conservative and Republican brands.

After Bush, I’m not going to vote for another Republican who promises to govern as a conservative, but ends up governing as a big-government, “compassionate conservative”, who does little to advance the cause of conservatism. At least Bush gave us good justices (though he nearly screwed that up with his appointment of Harriet Myers – who wasn’t good enough to defend him when things got rough, but who was supposedly good enough for the Supreme Court).

Maybe people can help put a positive face on what looks to be the (at least temporary) derailing of the conservative movement, but nobody can convince me to vote for any Republican other than Fred Thompson.

Any thoughts?

Comments

[Jeffrey]

Thomistic,
Is Keyes on your ballot in California? Hunter? I would say you should vote for Thompson as a protest vote even if he drops out before Super Tuesday.
You've spent plenty of time demonstrating why you won't vote for Ron Paul, and I respect that (but as you know, disagree). But if you really want to show the party how mad you are, a vote for him would do it.
------
Almost every candidate is promising huge government entitlement this election cycle. I think this is what happens when the anti-big government types take control of the government: they become the system. So, it might take a few years of Democrats in government to fire up the base and get things right again. McCain and Romney will lose to Hillary. Period.
My suggestions: turn off cable news, take your kids out of government schools, and spend a little extra time helping your neighbors as this credit crunch happens. Conservatives are wrongfully criticized because we rightfully believe we ought to be responsible for our neighbors without the government's involvement and charity. Show people we can do this and you will change hearts one at a time.
Big media and big government go hand in hand. It's not about conspiracies-it's about making money. It is very creepy, though, that big media can ignore a candidate or call him names and people will believe it so easily.
Finally, remember this: God is in His heaven, and He is watching down on the U.S. Prayers count more than votes, although both spiritual and social involvement are a part of being a good Catholic. Keep up the good fight and don't lose the Faith.

[Patrycke]

Thomistic,

If it is any consolation to you, I am planning on voting for Thompson in the primary. And, I agree with you about the other candidates--especially McCain. I wouldn't vote for McCain if he were running for dog catcher.

However, you must come to the realization that you are quite different from most people who call themselves "conservative." You actually study the issues and make use of your brain. I live in an area dominated by "Evangelical Christians." Too many of them are bigots and are as dumb as a bag of rocks.

Most voters, whether conservative or liberal, are too busy shopping for junk, stuffing their faces, or watching inane TV shows to be bothered with trivial matters such as where candidates stand on the issues. What they care about is the bread and circuses. And, even I must admit to not following it all as closely as I should, because I have become disillusioned and cynical (does it show?).

Jeffrey is correct about turning off the cable news and taking control of your children's education. The thing over which we have the most control is our own day-to-day lives.

It would be nice to live in a rural setting, near a nice TLM parish, where one could grow much of one's own food; bartering with neighbors; practicing self-sufficiency; and having as little to do with the system as possible. Isn't that, in part, what the Benedictine monasteries were about?

Lastly, you can have an effect on issues like abortion by changing minds.

[Jeffrey]

Patrycke,
Here's a nice looking place to visit:
http://www.clearcreekmonks.org/
Also take your boys here:
http://www.fssp.com/main/donations.htm

Minnesota is a pretty good place to get off the grid. I'm wondering when Catholics will follow the idea of the Libertarians moving to New Hampshire and decide to try to move a large number of orthodox Catholics to one state in order to really create a Catholic way of life in the U.S.

[Susan]

So, if Fred drops out, what choice are we Catholics left with? I agree with all your reasons for not voting for any of the other candidates, but if Fred doesn't stay in then what? Do we vote for the lesser evil? I knew Mormonism was wacky, but, wow! Did L. Ron Hubbard (sp?) read the Mormon theology before he came up with Scientology? It also makes me mad that the media have so much control in who gets elected. Even Fox News, who I think is relatively conservative for a news media, is largely ignoring Fred. A Catholic state sounds good to me!

[Sanctus Belle]

I have come to believe the Republican party has betrayed us. They proclaim moral conservatism, but do nothing but give lip service to it. I will not vote for any candidate that is not solidly anti-abortion. Perhaps we need a third party since the Republicans no longer have the nerve to lead.

[Jack Provenzale]

Why have you not even mentioned Dr. Ron Paul? It has been increasingly frustrating to watch the media force the focus of the population on certain candidates. I urge you to otain some information about Dr. Paul's stances(which have remained consistent throughout his political career). If you took a long hard look, I am confident that you will see that he fits those criteria for being called "conservative". Voting for the other "Republican" candidates will only further serve to marginalize real conservatism.

[Thomistic]

Attention Ron Paul supporters (besides Jeffrey):

Please don't defend the policies advocated by Ron Paul without also explaining why you support a man who allowed a newsletter to be published for decades which contained racist statements.

See: Trouble In Pauladise? – Ron Paul's Racist Revolution

Mr. Paul has admitted that it was his responsibility that this ever happened, because it was his official newsletter, and many of the articles purported to be written by him.

If he did write those things, he's a racist, he's lying about his actions now, and you're supporting a racist. If he didn't – he's incompetent, and therefore a terrible leader; which begs the question: Why do you still support him?

How can you suggest that Ron Paul is a respectable political candidate when the best spin that can be put on this is that he has surrounded himself with racist, conspiracy theorist nutjobs, and allowed his supporters to read a newsletter purportedly written by him (via a ghostwriter) which called black people animals and Martin Luther King, Jr. a gay pedophile?

Whatever one's perspective with respect to the political affiliations and/or motivations of Martin Luther King, Jr. may be, or whether one believes that he wasn't all he is made out to be (because of allegations of plagiarism, or serial adultery, etc.) it's clear that he was not a gay pedophile. It's wrong to smear someone like that, even if you disagree with them or believe that most people have a distorted view of him.

See: Martin Luther King, Jr. authorship issues

See also: See: Socialist "Saint" - Martin Luther King; Revered as a virtuous American hero, the real Martin Luther King, Jr. colluded with Communists, plagiarized his doctoral thesis, and led an immoral lifestyle.

There is a pattern of racism in those newsletters that occurs over a period of decades. Ron Paul admits it's there, he simply claims he never read his own newsletter, despite having signed some of them and despite the fact that he is actually affiliated with those who put it out, as well as the purported ghostwriter he claims is actually the author of anything from which he now chooses to distance himself.

Why does that sound reasonable to you?

Look up the term: cognitive dissonance.

It seems that the more people expose about Ron Paul's true positions, the more his supporters retreat into conspiracist fantasies and make irrational excuses for his untenable positions.

You may like his anti-war position and agree with his belief that the U.S. is to blame for terrorism, that we should get out of the Middle East and stop supporting Israel, and that this will encourage terrorists to leave us alone. You may agree with his position that Iran's development of nuclear facilities isn't a big concern.

Ron Paul is not a Catholic option. His positions on moral issues are not in keeping with Catholic doctrine. See: Ron Paul – Not A Catholic Option

Ron Paul supporters need to stop lying to Catholics in their posts on this blog, saying he's a good option for Catholics, and that his positions are aligned with those espoused by Pope Benedict XVI. They aren't. See: Pope Benedict XVI: The World Must Prevent Terrorists From Getting WMD's

Stop saying that he doesn't support legalizing drug use, when he's doing interviews with NORML (The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws). (To hear Ron Paul's interview with NORML, click on the videos in this post: The Case Against Ron Paul).

Stop saying he doesn't support legalizing prostitution, when he's accepting endorsements from brothels and talking about supporting the freedom to make that choice. (See: Ron Paul Supports "Freedom" For Brothels)

The to utilize the federalist dodge by claiming that Ron Paul is only saying the federal government shouldn't be involved involves either intentional deceit, intellectual dishonesty with oneself, or simply not listening to what Ron Paul is actually saying when he says, without qualification, that government should be in the business of telling people how to be good or do the right thing, which is another way of saying, "you can't legislate morality".

In so doing, Ron Paul is essentially arguing that STATES can't regulate these vices, as well as the Federal government, because he doesn't qualify his statements about his view of the role of government when talking about regulating morality by restricting them to the role of federal government. That's his libertarian ideological purity shining through. Stop pretending that's not what he means, when it's clearly exactly what he means.

Freedom is God's gift to man not to allow him to do as he pleases, but rather, to allow him to merit when he chooses the good (and consequently, to be punished when choosing evil).

Catholic teaching has always allowed for legal restrictions on human activity. Absolute freedom is not a Catholic ideal, and the freedom you endorse is practically moral anarchy with vague, fuzzy restrictions that in no way resemble the certitude given by the natural law. Laws are good, not a necessary evil. In fact, without laws, the universe wouldn't function (e.g., laws of gravity, physics, etc.). Moreover, freedom is a relative principle. Freedom from one thing is, in a sense, enslavement to its opposite.

The fact that you agree with the person who said that enforcing drugs laws does more harm than good, in many ways, doesn't make it so. Ergo, your ergo doesn't follow.

The reality that legalizing drugs would increase their presence in society, makes it an irresponsible moral choice.

Legalizing prostitution is not a Catholic option. Legalizing highly addictive drugs for recreational use is also not a Catholic option.

Ron Paul and libertarians aren't just saying states should have laws about this and not the federal government. They're applying the erroneous maxim that morality shouldn't be legislated in an effort to address particular moral issues.

Ron Paul says government shouldn't be involved in these issues. He doesn't qualify his comments by saying only the federal government shouldn't be involved. He says government, in general, shouldn't be involved.

That's wrong. It violates the Catholic understanding of the role of human law, which is to protect, promote, and preserve the common good.

In so far as the damage done by alcohol, the difference is that alcohol can be used for licit purposes, and is, in fact, used sacramentally by the Church, whereas heroin has no legitimate use, even medically. There's no reason to legalize it and there's no way to avoid the fact that legalizing it would essentially facilitate its use, resulting in people destroying themselves with the help of society.

Those who advocate the legalization of highly addictive recreational drugs are essentially making the keep abortion safe and legal argument with respect to drugs instead of abortion.

The fact that some women might die from illegal abortions does not necessitate my tax dollars keeping abortion "safe and legal".

The same holds for drug use and prostitution. Government should not sully itself by facilitating vice in an effort to ensure the safety of those who choose to indulge in vice.

Pax,

Thomistic

[Brian]

As a Catholic I agree 100%
I will not support the GOP if any of the other candidates are nominated. I would rather see us in the wilderness that cut our own feet off.

[Joseph-USA]

Thomistic -

Bless you! Congrats! Home run!

DON'T GIVE UP HOPE!

It is a CONVENTION. The Primaries rack up delegates, but we have also seen lots of "sure things" that our "CONSERVATIVE" Senate "Republicans" were steamrolling through over our dead bodies, and yet we don't have ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT AMNESTY laws on the books, until we put into office: McCain or Romney or Giuliani or Huckabee or Ron Paul, e.g. ANY OF THEM other than Thompson (e.g. Duncan Hunter's wall in San Diego was proper and good idea to protect his local turf - good on him but the wall across 2,000 miles Mexican border and what, 5,000 miles Canadian border is STUPID STUPID STUPID unless we name it the MAGINOT WALL of "stupid-New-France").

Stick with it and prepare to storm every telephone line of every friend or acquaintance and convince them to vote for Thompson - the ONLY Republican on the ballot).

[Wondering]

Whatever happened to Tom Tancredo?

[Bill]

I sympathize with your analysis, but can't support your conclusion. As a voter who left California, while I lived there, I would do nothing to reduce the Republican vote. Your state is the best argument I've seen for a split electoral vote, as it would tend to be 3:2 for the Democrats, and 22 electoral votes for the Republicans would make a huge difference.

At any event, the problem we have is not only that Thompson is the only candidate worth our votes, but that this is inherently a two party system, despite any anomalies that may appear, and any vote for other than one of the two is effectively a vote for the party more likely to win the majority, which in this case, means the Democrats.

A third party vote may salve your conscience, but if it does, re-examine your premises, as your logic is faulty.

Meanwhile, pray that Fred pulls his thumb out, and mounts a serious campaign.

[Christopher H.]

Thomas, you will love this!
CLICK HERE

[Hawk]

Ron Paul is a very good candidate. Have you kept track of his voting record or his Bills while in Congress. His record on these do speck for him. He is well qualified and does not go against Catholics .

[Hawk]

Ron Paul is a very good candidate. Have you kept track of his voting record or his Bills while in Congress. His record on these do speck for him. He is well qualified and does not go against Catholics .

[Robert]

I agree that Fred is the best candidate and am very disappointed. At the Cafeteria is Closed, Gerald points out that McCain and Thompson seem to be friendly with each other. If McCain were to get the nomination and he took Thompson as a VP would you consider voting for McCain then? As much as McCain has been through and as old as he is, he could die in office. I know that's not a Christian thing to hope for, but it's a possibility.

I know one thing, we have a responsibility to keep Hillary and Obama out of the oval office. We can't just pout and say we won't vote. Well, we can, but you know what that will lead to.

[Susan]

I am a thompson supporter and will support him to the end. He is the only true conservative and I've been praying with my haeat about this guy. GO FRED GO!!!

[Hawke]

Definitely been chiming in on Ron Paul here for a while now... I can certainly say to Jack that Thomistic has given plenty of opportunity for Ron Paul discussion and has laid out his points of view elsewhere. Him not doing so here isn't a travesty or anything... and I'm saying that as a Ron Paul voter who believes his irresponsible choice to let his name be used isn't a disqualifier compared to his record and beliee Dr. Paul is not a racist. While I'll state again that I think he would allow the most good to be done in the world by people and the Church.

I do have to say that RP supporters as a whole need to be careful not to jump into a blog or something on news.google's RP feed and make assumptions without doing more research. The "drive by" assumptions of some feverent supporters may be a result of right thinking of spreading the message ends up pushing people away.

(Also: "Hawk" and "Hawke" are two different people in the comments - just to clarify :)

[Brian Day]

Bill says,
"A third party vote may salve your conscience, but if it does, re-examine your premises, as your logic is faulty."

Unfortunately your logic gave those of us in California Arnold for governor instead of Tom McClintock. Instead of voting on principle, I was one of the many who chose Schwarzenegger as a compromise to make sure that Bustamante did not get elected. What a disaster.

Never again. Compromising on principles will always get you scr*w*d.

[Trubador]

Thomistic,

As a fellow Catholic conservative in California, I agree with you completely! When February 5 rolls around I will still vote for Fred Thompson in the California primary. But, if he does not become the nominee, I cannot in good conscience vote for ANY of the remaining candidates for president... in ANY of the political parties.

Come November, I may just end up doing a write-in vote for Bill Bennett.

[Bob]

The problem Thomistic is fundamental to the nature of conservatism. By definition the conservative movement in this country is really one of protecting the processes which allow for self governance while accommodating individual and collective liberties. The constitution is remarkable in that regard---nurturing a constant tension between the two competing sentiments. Any politician running for office in the modern era (an office in congress for example which allows for the immense acquisition of wealth and job stability) must promise to produce something through his offices---through our government. Hence, the tendency of government, regardless of party, to expand. Liberty is the constituent of no one ---for very few elected people, outside Reagan in the modern era, and fewer still of the electorate understand their constitution, and the need to be involved in government and civil associations at the subsidiary levels. The national government, under Bush alone for example, has traveled far in becoming a giant school board.

[deacon john m. bresnahan]

Many forget how perversely and insanely radical liberal the legislature, media, and courts in our state of Ma. are.
Romney was elected here because in the election, every chance he got, he edged conservative and gained the support of many who got the signal he was sending.
Sure enough, when he became governor, he wouldn't go along with much of the nutcake liberal junk the legislature plunked on his desk.
They call his turn to pro-life a flip-flop, but to those who astutely follow politics and are not brainwashed by the liberal media, Romney's so-called conservative "conversions" were no surprise at all.
Funny how in this controversy noone reminds people of the flip-flop treason against the pro-life cause by Democrats like Kennedy and many others as they decided to worship at the altar of the radicalized National Democratic Party.

[Bartie]

Have none of you ever heard of Alan Keyes? That's not surprising, given that the Republican Party has done everything in its' power to keep him out of the debates and away from the media.

Dr. Keyes is a faithful Catholic and a true conservative. He won the few debates he was allowed into. It is that ability to discuss issues celarly from a sound base that makes politicians afraid of him.

[Robert]

Alan Keyes, Ron Paul, William Bennett, the list goes on. Go ahead, write in your favorite better candidate (and they probably ARE better than whoever will win the nomination). However, the end result is the same: Hillary or Obama. Do all you you fellow conservatives--who I must say I hold in great respect--do all of you really think that there will be no difference if a less desirable semi-conservative wins than if Hillary or Obama wins? Maybe I'm wrong, but the thought of either Democrat running our nation terrifies me. The thought of the other blokes just disappoint me. Don't we have a responsibility to keep these philistines out of the White House?

[stoneman]

Those of you who say you will be sacrificing the good (Romney) for the perfect (Thompson) are in grave political error. The next president will appoint at least one Supreme Court Justice, and if that president is a Democrat, you can kiss overruling Roe v. Wade goodbye for another decade or so. Vote your heart in the primary and your brain in November, but don't be politically immature and not vote at all just because your guy isn't the nominee--that thinking will only help a Democrat get elected. True and mature conservatives will look at the bigger picture, not react emotionally (like a liberal would) because the five votes to overturn Roe are almost there. I personally am hoping for a Romney/Thompson ticket. Yes, Romney was pro-choice at one point, but he governed pro-life. And yes, Mormonism is bizarre, but we're electing a chief executive, not a pastor. Many leading conservatives are on board with Romney; that's no accident. In sum, quit whining, grow up, and vote for whoever the Republican nominee is--that is, if you want Roe overruled.

[Joe DelGiudice]

I am very disappointed in how so many true conservatives, such as you and your readers, have been poisoned on Huckabee by the Republican establishment. Truth is, Huckabee has the strongest Catholic sensibilities of anyone that has ever run for president, including Reagan. His positions align almost flawlessly with Church teaching.
Every "pro-life" candidate has, at best, taken a purely reactive position on abortion. The president of the United States has the greatest bully-pulpit imaginable, but both Bushes and even Reagan consistently steered clear from the issue if at all possible. Even when it came to supreme court appointments, they blew it. Don't forget, Reagan appointed Kennedy and O'Conner and Bush Sr. appointed Souter. If they got that right, Roe would have been gone by 1991 at the latest.

Mike Huckabee is the first candidate to ever even mentioned a constitutional amendment to protect life.

Fred Thompson squandered his eight years in the senate, when he could have done hard work for the unborn the way that Brownback, Santorum and Hyde (rep) have. If you want another back-burner pro-life president who will do nothing to further the movement, vote for anyone but Huckabee.

With the exception of Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee is the most "Catholic" politician I have ever know. Politically, he sure is more Catholic than Southern Baptist. If you want a protest vote that will send the message that we won't tolerate marginally pro-life republicans, vote for Huck.

If you really understand that 1.1 million Americans are being killed each year, how can any other issue even matter when there is only one candidate willing to do something about it?