Robert Taft's funeral

[mvies77]

Taft was a fool in foreign policy just as Ron Paul is today.

[xMaXiMuSx]

Taft is a true conservative who wanted to keep the US out of entangling alliances and wars.. He is Ron Paul today..

[DaveDeShrubber]

Robert Taft? What a completely worthless person! Before World War II he was one of those isolationist cowards who wanted to surrender to Hitler. After World War II he wanted to forgive all Nazi war criminals.

Shame on Ohio for not tossing this loser onto the scrapheap of history sooner.

[Perseiden2]

@DaveDeShrubber

so. you think the USA and that generation likes things the way they are today ?

[Xylogeist]

Robert Taft was a true conservative... You want Taft back? Vote Ron Paul... he is the only one who can bring back the Taft philosophy!

[RhettWright]

Unfortunate initials...

[crimthann86]

anti-family agenda.. = fear = epitome' of emotion & fear = demagogy

[switchhitter07]

Its the Conservatives like Taft whom I look up to. Ones like Taft and Goldwater, not about religion but about TRUE AMERICAN LIBERTY. I am THAT kind of Republican and THAT kind of conservative and am proud to call those men my heroes!

[marcparella]

@switchhitter07 I'm that kind of Republican too. But I'll go one further, and I think this is an important point. Freedom produces diversity and diversity produces differences of opinion. While we may disagree as a society, we nevertheless must value honest differences of opinion. The political rancor that is spreading today is toxic and very harmful to our republic.

[crimthann86]

"The political rancor that is spreading today is toxic and very harmful to our republic."

demagogy..

on the other hand it's not new; it's as old as the republic. Taft however was not a demagogue - he was a man with a head full of facts and statistics that the public finds boring unfortunately and he was not a populist - that's really what kept him out of the white house.

[marcparella]

@crimthann86: it is as old as man's relationship to man. But that doesn't mean you accept it simply because it has been around for ever. I have no problem making the distinction between honest difference of opinion and a lapse of character unworthy of my attention. The rancor today does not make this important distinction and therefore we lose a value component in our democratic process.

[crimthann86]

@ marcparella 'difference of opinion and a lapse of character unworthy of my attention.' The rancor today does not make this important distinction...'

What they did to Goldwater in 64 was libel and the worst kind of defamation.. that's the stuff I really do not like and I agree that's it's poison.. it's good in a republic to have different opinions on the issues but that the public laps up that other stuff has always disturbed me.

[crimthann86]

"unlike the neocons who've hijacked the Republican party."

Amen!

[Soulblackman]

@crimthann86 Explain.

[crimthann86]

@Soulblackman

I don't like the right wing faction of the republican party - conservative should mean a leaning toward a literal interpretation of the constitution of the united states vs. a more liberal view and the neo-cons - people like Dick Cheney etc. have another agenda entirely.

[Soulblackman]

@crimthann86 When it comes to foreign policy, are Cheney, etc. any different than anyone else, including dems? I maintain the only difference is in the approach and look. The objectives r the same. The big difference is in social culture and THAT's the reason the GOP gets the label of being divisive. In a society that prides itself on "diversity" and "freedom", to accuse anyone of being divisive, is the height of disingenuosity and dishonesty.

[crimthann86]

@Soulblackman

Foreign policy, Cheney etc.

Certainly Robert A. Taft, his father and some others - Hubert Hoover, T. Roosevelt would have opposed the course of things starting with old man Bush. This is a fair statement I believe.

It's not about 'divisive' it's about appealing to the emotions and fears of people without substance vs. following a course based on some principle. As a republican I applaud President Obama for at least being a man of principle in the face of such slander I hear.

[crimthann86]

@Soulblackman

I have not called anyone divisive.. there is nothing wrong with being divisive as long as it's not for the sake of simply being divisive. I disagree with Cheney and those like him on principle and I think they play as dirty as any democrat that ever lived. I believe history will validate that and it will be their legacy.

[Soulblackman]

I couldn't disagree w/u on the last point. Never in history, has a president been given such God-like adoration by the press. He is not being slandered, he is just being taken to task - FINALLY. To run a campaign on the slogan of "change", w/o specifying what is meant, is the epitome' of emotion & fear. I remember Clinton saying that the GOP wanted to starve old people; fear? TR set up the "war" in Panama to get at the Canal. Interesting, years later GHWB invades Panama.

[crimthann86]

Soulblackman..

I disagree.. I remember all the panic when he Obama tried to push all that stuff through.. I thought he was doing exactly what he said he was going to do. His website actually had a list. Clinton, old people.. yes well I didn't like that either but it still falls short of character assignation and even if the Dems did it and surely they have it is still wrong. I pointed that out in another comment. TR.. I am pretty sure that war was set up without TR's help.

[Soulblackman]

That's just it, he tried to PUSH it through. No thought or real analysis, just political maneuvering to promote his larger, anti-family agenda. NO ONE, except conservative, seemed to even read the "health" bill. Something of this magnitude requires more time to study. Tort reform MUST be considered and abortion-on-demand, rejected, as well as medical for illegals. TR wanted the Canal badly & it's a "coincidence" that there was a coup, giving him the perfect opportunity to come to the "rescue".

[starchyp92]

Taft surely would have been the Republican presidential nominee in 1948, and with all of the Republican landslides, probably would have won. The country was tired of FDR, Truman, and the Dems. However, Sen. Taft spoke out against the Nuremburg trials. He considered them violations of the Constitution and International Law, and as revenge, not justice. Everyone started calling him a crypto-Nazi or sympathizer, and the GOP nominated the moderate Dewey. Truman won. Taft was a true conservative!

[PeaceChick07]

Obama loves Georgia!

[Whoo69]

Robert Taft was a great Old Right icon. I also had great respect for his antiwar stance. I thought he was a little extreme in opposition to the New Deal and welfarism, though.

[espunde]

No one can be too extreme when it comes to opposing government theft.

[Doug41160]

Don't vote Dem, you're just pushing liberals when you do that. Hopefully Ron Paul will be a 3rd party candidate. If not, i may not even bother to vote!

I'll take a real conservative like the legendary Barry Goldwater and or current congressman Ron Paul over any phony modern day politician any ole time!

[Cuffsmaster]

PLEASE lets vote these damn neo cons out and the religious right that wants to make a Jesus party out of us. HELL for the first time in my life (60 years old) I am voting DEM in order to kill them and maybe get the party back to a conservative party. It is not one now.

[Danbojangles]

Don't do that...google Ron Paul.

[Cuffsmaster]

I reconize that with Ron Paul to be elected but the Fox news directed party will not elect him. They treat him as a joke. if he gets the nomination fine -- but if he does not don't vote for any of the other GOPs

[marcparella]

Lincoln, Taft, Goldwater, Paul. Yes, Virginia there are good Republicans.

[espunde]

Cross out Lincoln, he was a tyrant.

[marcparella]

What? Did you live in those days friends. Is this first hand knowledge. You must be rebel. Perhaps you would have preferred Buchanan winning  a second term. No thanks, I stick with Honest Abe.

[bolognamof]

You seriously need to read some criticism of Lincoln my friend. He was actually a pretty bad president. He was a socialist, a warmongerer, and a white supremacist. The problem is that all the historians are in like this Lincoln cult and they won't let any criticism out even though they know it's true. Read the two books by Thomas J. DiLorenzo and you will learn how Lincoln really was. He was a destroyer of the constitution!

[marcparella]

I have every speech that Lincoln wrote or gave. I see nothing in these speeches that support your argument. We still have among us Southern sympathizers for a long ago war.

[bolognamof]

That has nothing to do with it buddy. It's not just his speeches. Speeches are for persuasion. I am talking about what he actually said behind the scenes and what he actually believed. Corwin Amendment! Ever hear of it? Lincoln supported it! I am not a southern sympathizer but Lincoln dealt with slavery in the worst way possible. And the union is supposed to be voluntary! I do not support slavery i think it is an abomination. But Lincoln was actually a very bad president and he is way overrated.

[marcparella]

Speeches are very important to what a candidate believes. The Corwin Amendment was consistent with Lincoln's belief that Congress alone did not have the power to ameliorate the wrongs of slavery. Lincoln believed very strongly that the rule of law was the only means of ridding the country of slavery. Federalism in the 1860s is not what it is today: Congress simply did not have the power to outlaw slavery. I see no harm in Lincoln's reputation for support this act.

[bolognamof]

I definitely find wrong in it! It would have explicitly mentioned slavery in the constitution. And the congress definitely had the power to outlaw slavery as long they made an amendment and the states ratified it. And although i believe that slavery is absolutely horrible and everyman has a right to freedom. I think that Lincoln was wrong in starting a war over seccesion. The states had every right to leave. The union is voluntary! Lincoln is an enemy of the Constitution!!Habeas Corpus anyone?!?

[marcparella]

You want me to read history, you need to pick up a book friend. The Civil War started during the Buchanan administration. How did Lincoln start a war that began before his term?

[bolognamof]

What the cuk are you talking about?!?!?! You need to pick up a book!!! The war started under Linoln. Fort Sumter is where it started in the year 1861. Lincoln took office on March 4 and Fort Sumter did't occur till April 12!!! You are absolutely clueless as to what you are talking about!

[marcparella]

STOP WITH THE INSULTS!!! Most historians would probably agree with me that the war started with the South seceding from the Union. Buchanan had already made preparations for War by sending supply ships to Fort Sumter. On January 5, Buchanan sent a civilian steamer Star of the West to carry reinforcements and supplies to Fort Sumter. On January 9, 1861, South Carolina state batteries opened fire on the Star of the West, which returned to New York. Check your Facts sir!

[bolognamof]

That was not the start of the war!!! The war started with Lincoln provoking the south to attack at Fort Sumter! That gave him reason to do a full invasion of the South! The war was unnecessary and ridiculous! There is no denying that! Read the books like i told you before! Your mind will change i am sure! And type in DiLorenzo and watch his interview on c-span. And most historians by the way are part of this like "Lincoln cult" trying to make him seem like a god and ignoring the facts!

[marcparella]

You would get a failing grade in my rhetoric class. First you lose on the fact check. The first engagement came under Buchanan not Lincoln. Secondly I never said the war was necessary. Ron Paul's idea that the Federal Government should have purchased all the slaves in the South makes a lot of sense. But we have the benefit of hindsight and there's no guarantee his proposal would have been accepted.. Almost all wars are unnecessary. We fought Communism without a war.

[bolognamof]

I never said it was the first engagement! But what you are talking about is irrelevant to starting the war! Fort Sumter was the beginning of the war! There is no argument there.

[gilgamesh818]

We need another Robert Taft. To hell with ALL the neo-cons.

[ivanchou]

That's right. Long live Robert Taft.

[JakeandElwoodBlues]

R.I.P. Robert Taft and all other late Tafts.