Faces and names change, but old errors never die.

With only a few days to go I think it’s high time to lay out in clear terms what is at stake. This should pretty much do the trick.

With the barest of imagination you should have no problem transmuting Reagan’s remarks from 48 years ago to the wars, bad fiscal policies, and threats to freedom we face in the present day. Stunning, huh?

Note especially the *outrageous* figures he tosses about concerning the amount of money being wasted by social welfare program back in 1964. Quaint, huh?

Amazing how timely it still is.

This means we aren’t going to solve the problems and root out bad thinking in our own lifetimes; the best we can do is hold the line and make things a little better than they are now.

So we vote for the candidate who can win and whom we believe will take us in a good direction. No, unfortunately there is no Reagan in this election, but there’s still a clear choice and a responsibility to affect the good in the short and long term.



  • abadilla

    It’s amazing to hear Reagan speak of the dangers this nation faced then and what is faces today. He was a master of public speaking.
    Recently a friend of mine gave me the speeches of John Kennedy and I enjoy hearing them too, and the more I hear them, the more I realize the Democratic Party of that era has nothing to do with the Democratic Party of Obama.

  • 1964

    So are you now supporting Goldwater? (as Reagan was in the speech)
    What about Goldwater’s policies would you be endorsing, and do you think Romney will morph again this time into Barry Goldwater?
    Of Course you may recall that even though Reagan supported Goldwater in 1964 the GOP Lost Big. And much of what Reagan was campaigning against was the administration of the Catholic president, who was assasinated a year earlier.
    Instead we got civil rights legislation and medicare. Many people these things even it you do not. It could happen again. The only real question is “Is Romney more like Goldwater or Dole?”

  • Timeless Winner

    Well, I’ll grant you that of all the candidates you had to choose from in the GOP primary, Romney had the best chance of winning. But not a realistic chance. That’s why you are jeopardizing your souls by voting for a pro-abortion candidate in the cases of rape, incest and life of the mother — and who most people realize won’t do diddly to take abortion on as a major issue, let alone the most important issue, in his lifetime. You are cooperating with evil and compromising your soul if you support Romney — otherwise your beliefs are meaningless and just poitically partisan. And weren’t you amazed that Ryan turned out to be so spineless in supporting Romney’s position on abortion? That one shocked even me. I thought he, at least, had the courage of his convictions. No profile of courage there.

    • http://twitter.com/TomCrowe Tom Crowe

      Troll much?

      • One for the Zinger

        You are the king of witty come backs, I must say. Such an art form that brings all of CV together in wondrous splendor.
        Troll much – I just wish I was in the fifth grade again and could use this. How did you ever think of it? Did reagan help?

        I bet the put this in the Library next to There You Go Again.

    • Joe M

      Steve already debunked your lie about the morality of voting for Romney: http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=38368

      Do you really think it will work to claim that attempting to save thousands of innocent lives from abortion by voting for Romney is somehow not a Catholic thing to do?

      • Soul Man

        And Mark Shea’s Catholic orthodox argument is better than Crowe’s Republican partisan argument: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/10/the-non-negotiables.html Do want you want, dude. It’s your soul. Your choice if you want to negotiate the non-negotiables, compromising your soul.

        • http://twitter.com/TomCrowe Tom Crowe

          I find your characterization of my argument as “Republican partisan” indicative of missing the point. Willfully or otherwise. Please explain to me, in terms consonant with the logic of my argument, how I was “Republican partisan,” rather than “working to affect public policy for the good according to the means we have available at present,” which is how I understood it.

          • Toms Joke

            LOL – This is your best joke ever.
            How was I republican partisan. HAHAHAHAHAHHA
            When have you been anything less. You lost any credibility for anything else long ago.

          • Joe M

            You appear to be getting markedly more maniacal as the election nears. Is everything ok?

        • Joe M

          Why don’t you address my question?

          In what alternative universe do you think that it’s against the Catholic religion to not attempt to save thousands of innocent lives from abortion?

    • http://twitter.com/TomCrowe Tom Crowe

      And, Timeless Winner, do you have any response or comment upon what this article is actually about? Anything?

      • Nothingness

        Was there anything in this article relevant to anything? Anything?

        • Joe M

          In other words, no. You have no actual argument.

          Your intent is clear: For an atheist, pro-abortion, liberal agenda, you will flood the comments sections using multiple identities. Your hope is that people who are new to the site will mistakenly think that many people are motivated to disagree with it.

          What does it say about your personal integrity and the social standing of your arguments that you have to resort to astro-turfing support in blog comments?

    • Jesus Gomes

      Part of Romney’s fortune was made by disposing of aborted fetuses for planned parenthood. The other part was made by stealing from charities so he could avoid paying ANY tax for 15 years. Sorry, Romney has shown himself to be immoral and untrustworthy. I don’t know how anyone could vote for him.

      • Joe M

        I have directly debunked this lie multiple times now. Do you have no shame?

    • leogirl87

      Obama is for abortion at any time during pregnancy and for any reason. He also voted in favor of partial birth abortion and leaving babies born alive to die if the mother did not want them or intended to abort them.

      At least Romney’s policy is a step in the right direction. First, eliminate 97% of abortions and then tackle the last 3% of abortions. The liberals paint people as evil in their television ads if they do not agree with abortion in cases of rape or incest (many people are sadly influenced by TV, no matter how bad the logic behind an argument is), so this is a step toward compromise. After that, then we can dismantle their other abortion arguments and get this country moving in the right direction. Paul Ryan is a Catholic and is also against abortions. But Romney/Ryan understand that nobody gets anywhere with a “my way or the highway” mentality. We have to reach across to pro-abortion liberals and work with people whose views differ from our own.

      Would you rather vote for abortion in 100% of pregnancies or just 3%? Definitely a case of “the lesser of two evils”. Not to mention, Republicans can place some pro-life judges in the supreme court to help our cause. Democrats choose pro-choice judges who are even in favor of forced abortions.

      Do not be fooled. The political parties are not the same as they were 50 years ago. Their platforms are constantly changing so it’s important to keep updated on each party’s platform before deciding which party to vote for. The Democratic Party used to be a great party full of faithful Catholics, but has now been bought by pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-embryonic stem cell research individuals. This is 2012, not 1962.

      I know it is very difficult to change party loyalty, especially if you have been a strong member of that party for decades. But loyalty to God must come before loyalty to a changing political party.



Receive our updates via email.