This Is How Its Done

More to explorer


  1. Dear Mr. McCleary, It frustrates me at the dismissive tone of your blog post. It’s not surprise that you tend more to neo-conservative candidates. You probably want a pro-Israel lobby candidate, someone who is tied to fake conservatism like a Bush or a Walker. You will take no risk in a fresh person who clearly points out the ways in which Homeland Security and the Military Industrial complex are ruining the country, or that our policemen are being turned into Judge Dredds. You take delight in some personality who is friends with Bill Kristol and Zbigniew Brzezinski and has a vision of world dominance by force. Personally, I see no difference in Clinton, McCain, Romney, Obama, Bush 1, Bush 2 and now Bush 3. Each of these candidates have asked, “How do you like the dismantling of your country–quick and dirty, or slow and steady. None of them have been for building up. Not even Michelle Bachmann whom I admire on some issues can see 50 feet ahead of her without spotting a country to send missiles. All these conservative men and women want war. None of these is a Catholic world view by the way, but in the time of confusion such as we are in, they say we are allowed to differ–I differ with that opinion. Sure I would love for my country to be a super power, but we cannot be at present because our sins far mire our aspirations. We are bogged down in homosexuality, in abortion, in usury, in gross injustices and other violations. god will simply not let us take the lead in anything. If we ignore our own injustices, then His justice will be visited upon us. Every “conservative” who promises to end abortion and other vices really knows they are not going to be held accountable by Catholics and Protestants, so they just use rhetoric and pathos to no end. Catholics ought to say, “been there”, ‘tried that”. Where are our own candidates? Santorum? No way! He is the number one phoney. I have met him–totally principled on paper, but in reality–what a joke. Who else stands a chance to appease the lovers of morals and peace based on common sense and natural principles?

  2. James I have little tolerance for anti-Semites or pacifists. Keep that in mind if you wish to give rah, rah support for Mr. Rand on this blog. I find it amusing that your tiresome screed is made on a post where I celebrate Rand Paul for what he said. Did you bother to read my post before making this factually challenged comment?

  3. That is a good answer! I do like that combative spirit – because we want to win this time. Ted Cruz quoted Margaret Thatcher saying, “…first you win the argument, then you win the election.”
    I had a chance to tell him my thoughts on that – that part of the reason Democrats win the argument is because they have no diversity in their “big tent”- they all beat the same drum. The only differences in democrats is in degree not in kind.
    of course they have the complicity of the media
    So I like that feistiness shown in R Paul’s answer- and I hope all Republicans will get that same competitive spirit

  4. Amen to Ron.
    E. Schreiber commented on an earlier thread regarding how people in general process reality. The conclusions from the study indicate a decline in structural family and community norms, and an increase in “productivity based” realities.
    Fast forward to abortion debates.
    Will the babies have a chance at life in the shifting paradigm?
    A drag or encumbrance upon productivity, nothing more?
    Sacred for many are resources vs. Life.

  5. I may be biased given that Rand’s a hometown boy but what can I say, I’d take him over a lot of choices. Heck I’d vote for him just to send a message that being forthright and honest about your views and the cost of things is what I want in a candidate.

    Though in all honesty I’d prefer him to remain in the senate or be a vice president to tug the prez right (and better prep for a presidential run) than president at the moment.

  6. Good job by Rand in further response to DWS.

    Wasserman Schultz hit back — highlighting Paul’s testy interviews with female television anchors, too, by saying she hopes he can “respond without ‘shushing’ me.” But Paul, the Kentucky Republican senator who launched his 2016 presidential campaign this week, said her answer made it sound like she is indeed okay “killing a seven-pound baby.”

  7. Not even Michelle Bachmann whom I admire on some issues can see 50 feet ahead of her without spotting a country to send missiles.

    When you’ve decided to assess something other than caricatures, maybe you can get back to all of us. While were at it, formulations like ‘neocon’ and ‘Israel lobby’ go down well on alt-right boards. About the alt-right in general, recall what a department store executive once said to Rupert Murdoch: “we have your readers in our stores, as shoplifters”.

  8. It is so simple-Rand and Ted and whoever else nails it when they come right back at the media who support the Democrats with questions that for the Democrasts are the equivalent of “When will you stop killing your potential voters?”. Someone please teach all non-democrat candidates how to do this. Right back atcha liberal media: “Why are the Dems called the “Party Of Death” – which “death” is it? death of a seven pound baby? death of the family? death of the elderly? death of the victims of black on black crime? death of those in their mothers’ wombs? death of our soliders? death of an American ambassador? death of the home? death of America? Guy McClung, San Antonio

  9. Marvelous:

    “”Here’s an answer,” she said in an emailed statement. “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. Now your turn, Senator Paul.”

    Then, she posed some questions of her own, saying: “We know you want to allow government officials like yourself to make this decision for women — but do you stand by your opposition to any exceptions, even when it comes to rape, incest, or life of the mother? Or do we just have different definitions of ‘personal liberty’? And I’d appreciate it if you could respond without ‘shushing’ me.”

    But Paul wasn’t fazed — or impressed — by Wasserman Schultz’s answer. In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, the senator said it seemed to him like she wasn’t opposed to late-term abortions.

    “Sounds like her answer is yes, that she’s okay with killing a seven-pound baby,” he said.

    Paul went on to say that “even most of my friends who are pro-choice” are opposed to such abortions, but acknowledged that “there’s a bit of doubt and discussion [about abortions] earlier in the pregnancy.”

    “But Debbie’s position, which I guess is the Democrat Party’s position, that an abortion all the way up until the day of birth would be fine, I think most pro-choice people would be really uncomfortable with that,” he added. “So I don’t know — I really think she’s got some explaining to do.””

    Make the Democrats own their advocacy of what pro-abortion Senate Daniel Patrick Moynihan called “barely disguised infanticide”. Then we can get their opinions about sex selection abortions, Planned Parenthood aborting minors and not reporting suspected sex crimes against the very same minors, whether they favor the lack of regulation of abortion clinics that allowed Gosnell to run his abortion chamber of horrors for decades, etc. Democrats have lots of questions to answer about their abortion uber alles stance, and Senator Paul Rand has shown the way for Republicans to do it.

  10. Paul was a little too peremptorily feisty with Savannah Guthrie— he was swinging for a target that wasn’t there.. great to be a fighter at the appropriate time and when the matter weighs enough- not to just be petulant

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: