MODERN AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS IN THE 21ST CENTURY

I have taken the liberty of providing an English translation for the following:

On 2/29/2012 9:02 PM, a stalwart conservative Republican friend wrote:

Taking into consideration that the candidate I vote for USUALLY loses, the following may be taken with a big grain of salt. So, I am asking for your advice if you want to give it.

Four years ago, when MItt Romney gave his resigning-from-the-campaign speech, I thought the speech was great and I was very disappointed that he was leaving it all up to McCain, which I thought at the time would be - and has proven to be true - a disaster.
LIKE PICKING A TWIT FOR HIS VP CANDIDATE

More of a disaster than we even realized at the time and have witnessed over the past three years.
DISASTERS LIKE TAKING OUT OSAMA BIN LADEN, RESCUING OUR LARGEST CAR COMPANY, AND PREVENTING A 2ND DEPRESSION. AND BRINGING OUR TROOPS HOME FROM IRAQ. AND PASSING A HEALTH CARE REFORM BILL THAT ALREADY HAS TAKEN EFFECT, REMOVING THE LIFETIME CAP ON BENEFITS, PREVENTING COMPANIES FROM KICKING OUT PEOPLE WHO GET SICK OR REFUSING TO INSURE PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, AND MAKING IT POSSIBLE FOR PARENTS TO KEEP THEIR COLLEGE AGE CHILDREN AND OLDER ON THEIR INSURANCE POLICES. BAH HUMBUG TO THAT!


So, I was looking forward to his running again this year - but have been very disappointed in him because he has turned out to be like milk-toast, bland, not willing to fight against Obama, saying he'll drop only a portion of ObamaCare,
THE PARTS THAT PROVIDE THE MONEY SO THAT INSURANCE COMPANIES WON'T BE TOO HURT ON THE BOTTOM LINE BY BEING PREVENTED FROM DUMPING WOMEN WHO GET BREAST CANCER, LETTING SMALL CHILDREN DIE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD LIFE SAVING OPERATIONS, AND PUTTING COLLEGE AGE KIDS OUT THERE WITH NO HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE. BECAUSE SOCIAL DARWINISM IS GOOD FOR AMERICA! LET THE WEAK DIE, THAT'S THE REPUBLICAN WAY.

devoid of any fire or emotion in defense of our country and, frankly, reminds me of McCain. He does not want to hurt anyone's feelings and I don't trust him to do what is necessary to get our country back on track.
BACK ON THE TRACK OF DEREGULATION THAT BROUGHT US THE CRASHES OF 1988 AND 2008-- BOTH UNDER REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS WHO WERE OBSESSED WITH "FREEING UP THE BANKS" SO THAT THEY COULD DO CRAZY THINGS THAT WOULD ALMOST DESTROY THE ECONOMY.


For a while, Cain looked fairly attractive,

AT LEAST TO 40 SOMETHING YEAR OLD WOMEN, NOT HIS WIFE, WHO WANTED A PIECE OF HERMAN

but the liberals - either Democrat or Republican, maybe both - attacked him relentlessly.
BY REPLAYING THE WORDS THAT CAME OUT OF HIS MOUTH. LIKE WHEN HE TRIED TO REMEMBER THE COUNTRY OF LIBYA.


I had hopes for Rick Perry, but apparently he was not really ready for the national scene.
OR THE LOCAL SCENE. OR READING. WRITING. OR REMEMBERING THAT THIRD CABINET DEPARTMENT HE WANTED TO KIBOSH.

But there is some reason to consider moving to Texas - Perry declared that Texas was at war with the Federal Government.
WHICH WORKED OUT SO WELL FOR SOUTH CAROLINA, GEORGIA, VIRGINIA, ALABAMA, MISSISSIPPI, LOUISIANA, NORTH CAROLINA, AND TENNESSEE FROM 1861 TO 1865.

I think most of us who know what is going on are, or will be, feeling the same way if the way the Federal Government is going doesn't change soon.
WHICH IT DEFINITELY WILL IF WE ELECT RON PAUL. BUT HE WON'T PLAY THE SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE GAME OF PRETENDING THAT WE NEED A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO MANDATE VAGINAL RAPE (AS VIRGINIA TRIED TO DO IN THE NAME OF PREVENTING ABORTIONS) AND TO PREVENT WOMEN FROM BUYING CONTRACEPTIVES, AND TO PEER INTO OUR BEDROOMS AND DECIDE WHAT KIND OF SEX WE CAN HAVE AND WITH WHAT GENDER.


I tried really hard to choose Newt. He is the most intelligent, has the most ideas, is the greatest thinker, knows the most, has the best background of history, is the greatest speaker.
AND HE'S NOT SHY ABOUT TELLING YOU THAT. OVER. AND OVER. AND OVER.

But he also has some fairly liberal-tending ideas
LIKE ONE WIFE AND ONE MISTRESS AT TIME, REPLACED OVER, AND OVER, AND OVER, ARE THE WAY TO GO.

and I am not comfortable that he would do quite enough to clean out the Federal government. Maybe he would be good as Secretary of State.
WHERE HE COULD DECLARE WAR ON ... WAIT, DID YOU SAY STATE? NEWT AS A DIPLOMAT? I GUESS HE WOULD BE GOOD AT STARTING WARS.


Ron Paul?? He has some good ideas about personal responsibility, liberty and freedom, but is a total wreck (joke, maybe?) when it comes to understanding anything about national security.
LIKE, HE THINKS THAT IF WE ATTACK OTHER COUNTRIES, THEY MIGHT WANT TO FIGHT BACK WITH TERRORIST ACTS. WHERE DID HE EVER GET THAT CRAZY IDEA?


Actually, until two weeks ago I had not made up my mind about who I would vote for next Tuesday in the Republican Primary in Georgia. Then I finally decided that RICK SANTORUM will be whom I will vote for next Tuesday -- unless some of you have something to make me change my mind again.
LIKE, SAY, LISTENING TO THE ACTUAL WORDS COMING OUT OF RICK SANTORUM'S MOUTH:

“And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery… That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing.”

“As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else,” Santorum said. “It’s being drawn to Iraq and it’s not being drawn to the U.S. You know what? I want to keep it on Iraq. I don’t want the Eye to come back here to the United States.”


Rick Santorum seems to have the most fire in his belly, more willing to fight for the country, more willing to do what is right for the country. He seems to have CORE VALUES that, like Reagan, would guide him in the right direction for our country. I think that is really what is needed now for our country. And I think he has been the most consistent in his campaign. He's not perfect but the best of the litter we have to check from.
OK, SANTORUM REALLY SAID THIS; "President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob." RIGHT, THE GUY WHO WANTS ONLY THE ELITES TO GO TO COLLEGE IS NOT A SNOB, WHILE THE GUY WHO WANTS EVERYBODY TO GO IS A SNOB. I GUESS THE DEFINITION OF "SNOB" HAS SHIFTED, OH, ABOUT 180 DEGREES.


But the bottom line is: WE MUST GET RID OF OBAMA and all the socialists, communists, apologists, anti-Constitution and anti-Americans that are in the Federal Government today.

BECAUSE I HAVE A LIST, YOU SEE. THERE ARE ..... 57 COMMUNISTS IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT. NO WAIT, 78. UMM. I THINK IT'S 205 (ACTUAL QUOTES FROM JOSEPH McCARTHY, HOLDING UP A "LIST").

Four more years of that administration will be the end of our country as we know - or have known - it.
RIGHT. WE CAN'T AFFORD TO HAVE A COUNTRY WITH A COMPETENT, INTELLIGENT PERSON LEADING IT. WE HAD REAGAN, THEN SLID BACK TO GEORGE H. W. BUSH, THEN SLID BACK EVEN FURTHER TO BILL CLINTON. GEORGE W. BUSH CAME TO THE RESCUE FOR THOSE WHO WANT ONLY THE IGNORANT, UNCURIOUS, AND INCOMPETENT TO GOVERN, (YOU'RE DOING A HUCKAVA JOB, BROWNIE; THERE ARE WMD'S IN IRAQ; DEREGULATING THE BANKS IS THE WAY TO GO; WAIT, WE CAN CUT TAXES, INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING, GET INTO TWO HOT WARS, AND HAVE A MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT, ALL PAID FOR WITH. (WAIT FOR IT).... MONEY BORROWED FROM CHINA, AND OTHER COUNTRIES. THEN WE SLID BACK TOWARDS COMPETENCE AGAIN WITH BARACK OBAMA. WE CAN'T LET THAT CONTINUE. WE NEED ANOTHER GENUINE IDIOT IN POWER, AND RICK SANTORUM IS JUST THE GUY.

We'll all have to consolidate and move to the Republic of Texas and war with the Federal Government together.

Most of you I am sending this to have taken the oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, as I have several times both in military service and when I was sworn in as a lawyer.
RIGHT, AND SUPPORTING THE CONSTITUTION DEFINITELY MEANS GOING TO TEXAS AND WAGING WAR ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. BECAUSE IF THE CONSTITUTION STANDS FOR ANYTHING, IT STANDS FOR WAGING WAR ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. (IN BIZARRO WORLD, ANYWAY).

There have never been a time in our lives that honoring that oath was more important. The Federal Government is too strong to physically fight against; the struggle must be in the voting booth.
OH. A METAPHORICAL WAR, THEN. WE VOTE. PERHAPS WE NEED A SANE, COMPETENT CANDIDATE TO VOTE FOR? WILL THE REPUBLICAN PARTY SUPPLY ONE AGAIN IN OUR LIFETIMES? DOUBTFUL.

ONE MORE SANTORUM GEM:

Rick Santorum today said he regrets telling me on “This Week” that John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech on religion made him want to “throw up.”

“I wish that I had that particular line back,” Santorum, who is also Catholic, said on Laura Ingraham’s radio show today.

On Sunday Santorum criticized Kennedy’s speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association saying he did not agree with Kennedy when he said “the separation of church and state is absolute.”

“To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case?” Santorum asked on “This Week.”

ONLY IN SANTORUM'S FEVERED BRAIN CAN HE HEAR THE WORDS

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him." (actual quotes from Kennedy's West Virginia speech on September 12, 1960)

" AND COME UP WITH "Only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case."


I am open to hear anyone's contrary opinions and ideas on for whom to vote.

AND IN CLOSING, THE ACTUAL WORDS FROM THE CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE VI, WITH THE PERTINENT PART IN BOLD FACE AND CAPS:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; BUT NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED AS A QUALIFICATION TO ANY OFFICE OR PUBLIC TRUST UNDER THE UNITED STATES."

ATTACKING TOXIC ATTACK ADS- POLITICAL JUDO

I have read and heard numerous commentators and Democratic officials decry the 2010 Supreme Court's First Amendment decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which unleashed Super PAC's funded by large corporations and billionaires on electoral campaigns. They claim that we need a constitutional amendment to right this grievous wrong done to our democracy. They are wrong. Effective campaign reform can be accomplished without doing any damage to the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. First, define every private contribution to any candidate for federal office as a bribe and every request for funds, goods, or services from a candidate as a solicitation of a bribe. After all, a massive bribe is exactly what occurs when a trade group hosts a thousand dollar a plate fund raising event for a Senator or a Congressman. When a president can rent out the Lincoln bedroom for hundreds of thousand in campaign contributions, that's not democracy at work- it's bribe-ocracy. Public financing can and must replace every private contribution, freeing up those elected to do the public's business to actually do the public's business without fear of losing millions with a vote that might offend special interests like big oil, drug companies, banks, or insurance companies.

As for toxic television attack ads which the Citizens United decision supposedly has inflicted on an innocent public-- the First Amendment won't let us curtail them, but we can make them virtually useless to those who have paid for them. Any attack radio or tv ad submitted for broadcast by anybody- candidate or Politcal Action Committee-- will not be aired for at least two weeks, giving public interest groups and the attacked candidate a chance to preview them. The attackee will be permitted to record a response that will be twice as long, free of charge, which will air immediately following the first ad. Doing this does no damage to the First Amendment; it simply means that vicious lies-- like the attack ads in Georgia's 2002 Senate race that compared incumbent Democrat Max Cleland to Saddam Hussein-- could be immediately followed by an outraged response in which the the smeared candidate would be given the opportunity to set the record straight. In effect, every million dollars of air time paid for by the superwealthy will be a donation of two million dollars worth of free air time to the person being smeared. I doubt that unfair attack ads would survive in this environment.