McCain running mate discussion

hiccups · Future Queen in Zion

McCain running mate discussion

DoubleD · Senior Member

I don't believe we will ever seen McCain choose Romney. He hates Romney.

Politics makes strange "bedfellows" but this just ain't gunna happen.

hiccups · Future Queen in Zion

Well, I didn't say I had much hope of it happening... still stranger things have happened. I idea amuses me. And I would be happy to actually see it happen.

Pt314 · Senior Member

If he picks Romney, that would tick off the Huckabee people.
If he picks Huckabee, it would tick off the Romney people.
If he picks Guiliani, it would tick off the prolife people.

I don't think he's going to pick anybody who was running for president against him.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Yeah, and I'm guessing white males are out.

arbilad · Head Chef

Hey, McCain could pick Geraldine Ferraro for his running mate! Either that or Gladys Knight.

hiccups · Future Queen in Zion

And Obama could pick Oprah.

arbilad · Head Chef

If he picked Oprah, he'd get a lot more votes.

hiccups · Future Queen in Zion

Yeah. If he was gonna pick Oprah, he'd have leaked that by now. And he'd be miles in front of her Clintoness.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/15/politics/main4261959.shtml

"Despite his deep summer tan, Romney has been anything but a beach bum as of late. Since dropping out of the Republican race in February, he has gone from being John McCain's fiercest rival to one of the Arizona senator's most visible surrogates. What was inconceivable during the height of their primary battles, the prospect of a McCain/Romney ticket, is now a real possibility.

"The most obvious assets that Romney would bring to the Republican ticket include his economic expertise, fundraising prowess and potential to give McCain a boost in more than one battleground state. But a less talked about plus side to a Romney vice presidential candidacy is that despite his perpetually sunny demeanor, the former Massachusetts governor is not afraid to unleash razor-sharp political attacks against the opposition.

"This is not the time for an amateur," Romney said of presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama. "This is the time for a tested, proven professional to lead our country."

"Romney brims with confidence and is almost always unflappable. The McCain campaign has taken advantage of Romney's willingness to take the offensive by encouraging him to make TV appearances on the senator's behalf."

Organist · Senior Member

Currently, a Romney VP slot may be the only reason I would vote for McCain over Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party. I'm not sure how I feel about Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.

arbilad · Head Chef

I'm still torn about who to vote for. I just know that I won't be voting major party.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

The other evening I got into a discussion with a member of our stake presidency which led to him telling me that he is trying to figure out which of the presidential candidates best fit his views on what he wants in a president. I suggested that instead of judging the candidates according to his views, wishes, and druthers, that he find out which of the candidates would be most acceptable to the Lord by studying what the Lord and his Prophets and Apostles have told us about proper government. I then recommended he read D&C 98:6 and 101:77 & 80 as a starter, followed by a study of the US Constitution. As a parting shot I offered to loan him a book I have loaded with quotes by Prophets and Apostles about the importance of LDSs upholding the Constitution.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

If he chose Ron Paul, I'd flip right out.

Pt314 · Senior Member

There are rumors that McCain will pick his running mate this week.

arbilad · Head Chef

It'll be interesting to see what the VP choices do to the race. So far the media is treating McCain like something the cat dragged in (which isn't far from the truth) and Obama as the second coming (which is just about as far from the truth as you can get).

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Actually, I would like to see Mitt Romney picked for VP. Mind, I stand solidly behind all I said and posted about him on this forum. I consider him a poor example of what an LDS candidate for political office should be. And I expect at this point in time to vote for Chuck Baldwin. But I would like to see him dragged onto the stage again so that maybe another time around American LDS voters can better see the real Mitt Romney, and perhaps get a badly needed lesson in what the Lord really wanted in the US government. Mitt Romney does not represent that, with all due respect for his family life, church activity and business success. IMO, He needs a lesson on the proper role of government as taught by Ezra Taft Benson, and on the US Constitution.

DoubleD · Senior Member

lundbaek wrote:

Actually, I would like to see Mitt Romney picked for VP. Mind, I stand solidly behind all I said and posted about him on this forum. I consider him a poor example of what an LDS candidate for political office should be. And I expect at this point in time to vote for Chuck Baldwin. But I would like to see him dragged onto the stage again so that maybe another time around American LDS voters can better see the real Mitt Romney, and perhaps get a badly needed lesson in what the Lord really wanted in the US government. Mitt Romney does not represent that, with all due respect for his family life, church activity and business success. IMO, He needs a lesson on the proper role of government as taught by Ezra Taft Benson, and on the US Constitution.

Even though Mitt has now made it into the top three that McCain is considering.... (a miracle all by itself), I think more LDS would fall in love with the wonderful man that he is. He's got a great family life. (I know a couple of his boys and one daughter in law) He is very active in the church and there are few better than Mitt when it comes to business success. As for intelligence, he makes Obama and McCain look like idiots. As for knowing what is best for America, I can't think of anyone better... but alas, I continue to wonder if McCain will do the right thing in choosing Mitt.

arbilad · Head Chef

I continue to be amazed at the LDS fascination with Mitt. He supported abortion groups, gay rights, gun control, and a whole litany of similar things. But to each his own.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

IMO, if Mitt Romney knew what would be best for America and for himself, he would do as I suggested in a letter to him last year:

(1) Stay true to your LDS faith and truly 'befriend' the US
Constitution. Instituting mandatory socialist health care in MA and
publicly ignoring the responsibility of Congress to declare war have
demonstrated disdain for the Constitution.

(2) Retract your endorsement of Senator McCain. He is a liberal and
supports the program to create a world socialist dictatorship. You
will regret your current support of John McCain. I suggest you now
lend your support to one or both of the candidates who one might
think actually have read D&C 98:6, Chuck Baldwin and Ron Paul.

(3) Help rally the Elders of Israel in the defense of the
Constitution and basic Gospel principles. The Latter-day Saints are
to in future be the solution to the problem, not part of it.

(4) Study what the Lord, and Latter-day Prophets and Apostles said
and wrote about the US Constitution. I suggest reading the book 'A
Glorious Standard' by LDS author Christopher S. Bentley. If given a
mailing address, I will send you a copy. I had the privilege of
editing and endorsing the book.

Organist · Senior Member

The problem I have with comparing Chuck Baldwin's record to other politician's records is that he has no record. Part of politics is compromise. What is Chuck Baldwin willing to compromise in politics? If nothing, then he would be an awful leader. If too much, then he would be an awful leader.

Since he has held no elected office, he has the luxury of comparing his idea of utopia to that of politicians who have actually held office and had to compromise. That is not a valid comparison. (He actually brags about this on his website, Aren't you tired of politicians who are always flip flopping? Try me! I have no record, so I have never flipped nor flopped!)

Plus, he has no chance of winning, so he can focus further on his utopia rather than campaigning to actually win, which would mean some moderation on some stringent ideas.

Even without a political record, there are some things that bother me about Chuck Baldwin. He was a big part of the rise of the religious right. He has some very recent comments about 9/11 conspiracies. He wants religions to be much more involved in politics.

Those are big red flags, which begs what kind of anti-Baldwin sound bites had he actually been in politics to have a political record.

Despite those non-utopia items, I could still vote for him, just like I can still vote for other politicians.

My concern with Bob Barr is his recent conversion to allowing same sex marriages so he could join the Libertarian party. He was one of the original sponsors of the Defense of Marriage Act, but has since apologized for the portions of it proscribing gay marriage. It is not the "flip-flop" on positions that bothers me, it is that he changed to such an anti family position. But, I might still be able to vote for him, too.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Here is a taste of Chuck Baldwin

July 23, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

I want to begin this column with one of my all-time favorite quotes. It comes from the great German reformer Martin Luther. He said, "If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."

Luther's trenchant statement reminds us that today's Christians, especially our Christian leaders, are conspicuously absent from the field of battle. Oh, they may host large crowds in their gatherings; they may deposit multiplied millions of dollars in their financial accounts; they may receive thunderous applause from politicians, but they have fled the battlefield at the point of attack.

For the record, the real battlefield today is not abortion. It is not homosexual marriage. It is not Social Security. It is not al Qaeda. It is not taxes. It is not inflation. It is not electing conservatives. It is not posting the Ten Commandments. It is not even the high cost of gasoline. That is not to say that those issues are not important and not deserving of our best efforts and attention, because they are. But those issues do not represent the major battlefield today.

The battlefield where the devil has amassed his greatest forces and is thrusting his deadliest armies is the surrender of our national sovereignty and independence, and the creation of global government. And it is our own political and corporate leaders that are facilitating this chicanery. Furthermore, by refusing to oppose this surrender, our Christian leaders are complicit as well.

Obviously, the surrender of our independence has been ongoing for some time. However, under Bill Clinton and especially under G.W. Bush, the pace has quickened exponentially.

Doubtless, the biggest reason President Bush has more aggressively hastened the pace of America's merger into supranational government is because he enjoys widespread support among evangelical Christians. Absent opposition from Christian leaders, G.W. Bush has virtually had a free hand. And please know this: before Bush was a Republican, before he was a "conservative," before he was a Christian, he was and is a globalist, as was his father and grandfather before him.

Because our national Christian leaders are content to revel in the lap of political cronyism with President Bush (and the Republican Party), they have abandoned their positions as watchmen on the wall. Instead of being watchmen and heralds of truth, they have become political lackeys and toadies for the GOP.

Now, just yesterday, James Dobson declares that he "might" support John McCain. This in spite of the fact that only a few months ago Mr. Dobson promised, "I cannot and I will not vote for Sen. John McCain as a matter of conscience."

Ah, but that is just the problem: when it comes to groveling before the GOP, our Christian leaders have no conscience. Hence, James Dobson is now publicly saying he "might" support McCain.

The ones who are doing the yeoman's work in trying to warn the American people to what is happening in regard to the surrender of our country's liberties and independence are people such as Congressman Ron Paul and Dr. Jerome Corsi.

Many of you know Corsi as the man who co-authored the Number 1 New York Times best-seller, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry."

Jerome Corsi holds a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science. He is not some fringe-radical (not that Harvard hasn't produced its own radicals). Religiously, my understanding is that Corsi is either a Roman Catholic or Episcopalian. However, Corsi is doing what James Dobson, Tony Perkins, et al. should be doing, but aren't: he is sounding the trumpet of truth for the real battlefield.

In a nutshell, Corsi warns us that G.W. Bush is secretly working to merge the United States into a trilateral government with Canada and Mexico. Corsi maintains that back in March of 2005, President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin entered into an agreement that binds the three countries into a regional or hemispheric government.

Corsi insists that this is one of the central reasons why Bush is so adamant about granting amnesty to Mexico's illegal aliens. Bush is simply following through with his commitment to Fox and Martin.

Corsi also notes that this new hemispheric entity already has a name. It is called the North American Union (NAU), and it is being created without any input (or even knowledge) from our legislative or judicial branches of government. The official name of the agreement made between the three leaders is the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" (SPP). Obviously, the new NAU is modeled after the already established European Union (EU).

Folks, please be aware that President Bush has already committed the United States to a regional or hemispheric government. When completed, this regional government will control everything relative to the "security" and "prosperity" of this new North American Union. That includes everything relating to travel, law enforcement, trade, education, military matters, etc. So, what is left out? Nothing.

Please remember, too, that all of this is being done without any input from the American people or their elected representatives at the state or federal level. I would even dare say that the vast majority of congressmen and senators are completely oblivious to the fact that this is even happening. With the attention of the American people (and Congress) focused on the Middle East, Bush and his cabal of elitists are moving forward with plans to surrender our national independence and merge our country into a regional government. Friends, this is the real war; this is the real battlefield.

When America loses its sovereignty and independence, we will lose all of our fundamental liberties. The Constitution will be meaningless and irrelevant. The Bill of Rights will be moot. The principles of religious liberty, the right to life, and the Christian foundation of our country will be passé. And, as I said at the outset of this column, our national leaders, especially our Christian leaders, are totally absent from this battlefield.

The surrender of our national sovereignty and independence is where the battle currently rages; it is where the devil is at this moment attacking (to quote Luther). But where is the Religious Right? They have flinched and fled in the face of battle. They would rather hold onto their precious perks of power within the ivory towers of partisan politics. Luther is right: their actions are disgraceful.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

True enough. Chuck Baldwin wants religions to be much more involved in politics. But so did our prophets and apostles a few decades ago.

I joined the Church in 1960, and noted occasional talks and articles, both before then and after until the 1980s, by prophets and apostles, asking, or at least broadly hinting members to get involved in politics in support of freedom and constitutional principles. I was quite surprised, to be honest. Here are a couple of samples:

"To me, that statement of the Lord, "I have established the Constitution of this land," puts the Constitution of the United States in the position in which it would be if it were written in this book of Doctrine and Covenants itself. This makes the Constitution the word of the Lord to us. That it was given, not by oral utterance, but by the operation of his mind and spirit upon the minds of men, inspiring them to the working out of this great document of human government, does not alter its authority." (J. Ruben Clark, April 1935, General Conference)

"It is part of our "Mormon" theology that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired; that our Republic came into existence through wise men raised up for that very purpose." (David O. McKay. 1967, Letter to administration and faculty at Brigham Young University)

"We urge members of the Church and all Americans to begin now to reflect more intently on the meaning and importance of the Constitution, and of adherence to its principles." (November 1973, The First Presidency Statement on the Constitution, Ensign)

"[Bless] this land, we pray theethat the precious liberties enunciated in the Bill of Rights may never be abridged nor taken from the people." (Gordon B. Hinkley, May 1, 1993, San Diego Temple Dedicatory Prayer)

In recent decades the Church has clearly backed off from this. But one can still access some of the powerful talks on freedom and the US Constitution by pasr General Authorities. A lot of members seem to assume this is no longer something we should be involved in. But as long as we are told to read the scriptures, and do so, we will get the same basic messages.