Mary,

Although I have not lived in your circumstances like yours, I have worked both professionally and on a volunteer basis with those who have. I have worked with a variety of populations, with people who have mental illness, substance addictions, physical and mental disabilities.

I do not believe that private charity would be effective in providing security for citizens such as yourself. I therefore agree with you that a life affirming society should provide a strong social safety net for vulnerable citizens.

As Gordon suggests, there should be more private-public partnerships with government, faith-based institutions and private charity. But I think with all due respect to those who differ with me, that it is naive to think that private charity could address the needs of all of our vulnerable populations.

I used to manage group homes for people with developmental disabilities, and have an idea of the per diem cost of supporting adults with developmental disabilities, including their health care. It is a lot.

I value the concept of sharing of burdens in our society, both in the private and public sphere. We are a very wealth society. We should be able to take care of our people.

Gordo:
Do you think anyone can even explain to us what purpose the U.S. Dept. of Education serves? Even with my leanings towards a significant role for the federal government, I would be in favor of getting rid of it. What good purpose does it fulfill? I believe in the right of parents to a strong voice in the way in which their children are educated. Also, challenges and opportunities in public education can vary greatly from one locale to the next. There is no need for the federal government to get involved, except possibly in a supporting, but not regulatory role, where particularly schools may face economic or staffing challenges that are beyond the ability of the local authorities to handle.
Ryan

Gordo,

I personally believe that the current administration would have tried to go into Iraq anyway, without 9-11. I think that this had been in the works since the early 1990s. But that is another subject.

Even with 9-11 happening. I think that President Bush could have taken us in a different direction. Instead of going into Iraq, all resources could have been focused on finding Osama Bin Laden. I think it was right and good that we overthrew the Taliban in Afganistan. Now, I can imagine one possible picture of things had we not gone into Iraq

1) All military resources would be focused on Al Queda
2) More time and resources could have been put toward more effective border control
3) the President could have straightened out and refurbished the CIA and FBI so that they would do their jobs correctly
4) We would not have near the national debt that we have and the President would have had more authority to continue with his domestic agenda
5) President Bush would be regarded as a wise leader. Our reputation with our European allies would have increased greatly and we would likely get more cooperation on intelligence and on other issues.
6) The bulk of our armed forces would not be stuck in Iraq, away from their homeland, making us an easy target of attack. After all, what would we do if one or two more conflicts broke out in other parts of the world that we thought we should be involved in.
7) The Republicans probably would not have lost congress in 2006 and President Bush would have the popularity and moral authority to push a strongly prolife agenda, including more restrictions to abortion and more challenges to Roe v. Wade. Without the popularity and moral authority, the best that the President can do is veto any bill that would overturn restrictions on abortion and hope that his veto is sustained. And, by the way. Suppose justice Ginsberg or John Paul Stevens were to suddenly retire. What chance would the president have of getting a pro-life judge through the senate judiciary committee?

So, I personally believe that President Bush has done tremendous damage, even to the prolife movement. Just my two cents.

Joe

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3147940&page=1

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who barely registers in public opinion polls of the Republican presidential field, won last Thursday night's debate.

That was the unmistakable conclusion of the online poll posted by debate sponsor MSNBC, which registered Paul with higher positive ratings and lower negative numbers than any of the other nine candidates on the stage.
Editor's Picks

ABC's post-debate Internet survey showed an even clearer victory for Paul, with the congressman taking more than 9,400 of 11,000 votes as of 12:30 p.m. Monday. (Rudy Giuliani is the next ranked candidate, with barely 150 votes.)

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3147940&page=1

Nope, just spend too much time on the social news site, http://www.Digg.com

BTW check my article above, it appears Ron Paul did win.

http://www.buchanan.org/blog/

PJB agrees with that assessment. If you scroll down on his page, you will see Congressman Paul's stellar moments. Taken in aggregate, truly he is the most conservative!

Gordo

Ron Paul is looking better to me all the time. I just scanned his website. I think I agree with everything so far. I like Guilliani's decisiveness but not his facile attitude toward Life. I like McCain's pro-Life and pro military stands but find his view on the First Amendment troubling and he's too physically frail. Mitt Romney might be acceptable but I'm always a little suspicious when one is a bit too slick. Most of the rest have too many downsides. Maybe Paul is worth getting behind.

http://www.house.gov/paul/

CDL

Sorry I have to disagree.

I think Romney won the debate and most Republicans I speak to agree with me.

When exactly did ABC become THE WORD on conservative debates anyway ?

http://www.foxnews.com/

Scroll down to videos and watch the Mitt Romney post-debate interview with Hannity and Colmes.

Colmes quotes 'many' who say that Mitt Romney was the clear winner.

If you think Ron Paul won, you must have watched another debate

Anyway, nothing against Ron Paul, but Romney is head and shoulders in the debate.

Ron Paul is interesting. I actually have several friends supporting Ron Paul, even some who have traditionally voted on the left.

In solidarity of purpose and heart.

Mary

I, too will have to give Dr. Paul a second look, who knows even my dad may vote for him. The last Republican he voted for was Nixon (to his shame he says.)

For those of you who want to see Ron Paul's answers in the debate, here's a link to see all the answers he gave.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peBGJwE9NXo

Can the media keep silent on him?

Nathan

Hannity and Colmes 1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Bxdfj-vM024
Hannity and Colmes 2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=S4Ydjkogrqc

Mitt 2008!