Conservative. But Also Republican.

davesinsanantonio

AMEN!

bk

“…the GOP has put the band back together so to speak. The grand coalition that brings Republican victories has solidified. Victory seems to be within reach.”

Whenever this has looked to be the case in the last few years, we’ve then had the RNC, NRSC, and/or NRCC step in and screw it up.

Christine (Trelaina)

My biggest concern is what I tend to call “microwave” thinking. We are making inroads, bringing the GOP to the right…but there are some who think because they want the change and fight for it that it will happen TODAY. When it doesn’t, they balk, complain, and run.

It took 40+ years for the left to slowly whittle the democrat party into the left-wing socialist party it is today. I hope to God it doesn’t take us that long, but I know it won’t happen overnight. The job won’t be complete in November. Even if the GOP has the majority, the conservatives won’t be in charge and the tea parties won’t be in charge. There will be more to do…preparations for 2012, etc.

People need to hear, over and over, that this is not a fight, but a war. Wars take years to win.

http://www.voterubio2010.com nelsa

“We already have one Democratic Party,. We dont need another one.”

Of course he was talking about RINOs like Charlie Crist who shift their positions and pander to the latest trends.

Working with Democrats is one thing. Working FOR them is another.

southernpatriots

In Georgia, despite our emails and letters, we saw as two men of integrity followed blindly their Republican president and voted for TARP, though this was hugely unpopular among the voters in Georgia. Each of the U.S. Senators, Chambliss and Isakson, both justified their votes for TARP. I warned Chambliss that he was in for a great fight of his political life. He was. His opponent probably would not have normally won a race as a dog catcher, but took Chambliss into a run off and only with the help of big hitters like Palin, Chaney, and others and a huge amount of financial support, Chambliss was able to win his seat again. Isakson had some time of separation before he had to run again. TARP under Bush opened the door for much greater government bailouts under the Demonrats. Bush’s governance because like a Demonrat lite. There must be accountability, and though many will not vote against a Republican, they will stay home (like with Chambliss in the general election). We must support conservatives that we can truly support (like former Congressman Charlie Norwood, current Congressman Paul Broun) who vote with guiding principles as Broun said: 1. What does God’s Word say about it? 2. What does the U.S. Constitution say about it? 3. What do the people I represent say about it? He has pledged and practiced these principles, it would be much better country today if all Republicans adhered to same core set of principles.

trutexan

ithos

Look how a few green votes in FL cost Gore the election. Most of the elections are decided by plurality not majority so to divide the limited government votes by supporting third parties is idiotic. If majority votes were the standard or the Democrats weren’t hell bent on transforming our Constitutional Republic then it would not be as critical.

In addition, the two party system with its primaries gives ideologically committed factions tremendous leverage. Remember how the radical socialists have taken over the Democrat Party or how the Moral Majority influenced the GOP in the 80′s? It can happen for conservatives this election cycle.

History shows that ANY PARTY regardless of platform that isn’t held accountable by the electorate will sooner or later will be lured away from it’s principles by self interest. Corruption is bipartisan

tngal

While indiividual voters are returning to their conservative values, the organizations such as RNC are leaning left of center. If they don’t see this they’re going to wind up with another MCCain running fo rthe white house. Many R’s stayed home because he was just too moderate.

As as far as a third party goes, most are a waste of space on a ballot, although I have no problem voting for someone from the Constitution Party over someone who just has an R by their name.

seattle_ite

Unfortunately, I fell for the ‘third party’ meme in ’92, with H. Ross Perot (I’m handing the election to a socialist) campaign. I was new to the electoral process, and apologize profusely.

The answer to the problem is not a third party, or to kowtow to the “moderates”. We need to hold the RNC leadership responsible for the messes they have made.

I, personally, don’t care if I differ on certain minor issues with the ‘squishies’, as long as we agree on core principles (limited Government, low taxes and National Security, being but a few).

But, when a Republican runs on a Pro-Life message, then votes to fund Abortion on demand, the party has, as the Gipper said, left me; not the other way around.

Sen. Graham needs to remember just whom he ‘represents’, rather than the idiots who fund his re-election campaigns. McCain needs to be run out of town on a rail. Specter was always a back-stabbing twit.

Unfortunately, the folks here at my end of the country, think that the Democrats actually believe in Democracy (the poor, deluded fools). I do apologize to America, for their idiocy.

JadedByPolitics

about the TEA Party “splitting” the vote, it isn’t going to happen however NO ONE who is Conservative would support idiots like that TRASH in NY23 and you are correct that is it ALWAYS the RINO’s who bolt and run as anything but a Republican and the truth of the matter is they were NEVER Conservative nor Republican they were always LIBERALS but the Democrat Party is so far to the left that they have no home there so they have been leaking into the Republican Party and its time for them to go home!

satchmo

“Third parties are not an option; they are a path to more Democratic victories.”

This is actually a logical fallacy, since if a majority of people voted for a third party candidate, then that third party candidate would win. It’s a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy that, to me, is meant to marginalize. I’m libertarian in my beliefs and values, though not a member of the Libertarian party. While you may believe that “There is a very real difference between the Republicans and Democrats,” many libertarians and independents don’t believe that. All we have to do is look no further than McCain, L.Graham, McConnell, L.Alexander, B.Corker, Snowe, Collins, Boehner, etc. Where is the difference when you have a Republican president say that he had to abandon free market principles in order to save the free market? Or Newt Gingrich sitting on Pelosi’s couch pushing environmentalist nonsense.

Additionally, we don’t want bipartisanship. I sure don’t. The GOP, especially leadership, too often operates from a position of weakness and concession. Both the health care bill and the financial reform bill are perfect examples. Time and time again GOP leadership accepted the idea that these bills and ideas must exist by saying, “let’s slow down,” or “let’s start over” if we want reform.

Third parties have been snuffed at the federal level due to rules and laws implemented by the two major parties (for example, debates). Frankly, if there were more third party candidates in both houses, there would be more gridlock, and that would be a welcome thing.

smagar

Marcus_Traianus

To complete the trifecta we need new leadership. “Trifecta” is defined thusly;
1- Defeat pretenders, ineffective incumbents and other closet liberals in the primaries
2- Defeat liberal, big government, free spending Obama-Reid-Pelosi Democrats in the general
3- Rid ourselves of ineffective, ineffectual, career politician “leaders”

Since 2007 we have seen public goodwill towards our party and ,in tandem, a conservative agenda slip from our grasp. That can only be the result of poor leadership underwritten by an inability to formulate, agree and move forward on a well-articulated the American people want.

I blame McConnell and Boehner who apparently do not have the ability or clout to accomplish this feat. I therefore have no reason to believe they will be successful in the future.

We can not fully accomplish our goal without their removal. If McConnell and Boehner had any honor they would offer their resignation and accept responsibility for the undesirable situation in which we find ourselves.

satchmo

However, democracy is not something to strive for. Democracy is nothing but mob rule, which is why our founders did not establish a democracy. In their day “democrat” was an epithet that meant “one who panders to the masses.” Also, and this isn’t a nitpick, but Senators do not represent the people; they represent the state. Unfortunately the 17th amendment stripped the states of their right to choose their representative voice. The 17th must be repealed.

mbecker908

You probably should have checked out your thesis with GWHB the two term Republican President right after Reagan. Or maybe former President Algore.

Third parties are not now and have never been anything more than a distraction designed to elect the least tolerable candidate to those who got duped into a third party vote.

If you don’t like the direction and content of the Republican Party, get off you a$$ a follow Cold Warrior’s advice, become a PC and help move the party to a Conservative standard.

RedBeard

Of course if enough people voted for a third party, it would win.

Trouble comes when departing theory for reality, where third parties can only muck up the chance to rein in the leftists and restore some sanity to government.

Third parties, in order to become any sort of force, must start down in the races for dogcatcher and mosquito control commissioner, and see if they can grow from there. Third parties at the national level, where there is no chance of success, but a real chance for screwing up the country by aiding the left’s control, are a disaster.

The Republican Party is our only hope. No other exists. This is reality.

streiff

neither conservatives nor Republicans are libertarians so your view is a lot less than interesting to us.

satchmo

Believing that those who voted for the Green party candidate would have automatically voted for Gore if the Green weren’t on the ballot. That isn’t true at all.

RedBeard

Popular election of senators is a mistake, along the same lines as the misguided push to eliminate the electoral college.

What are we? “A Republic, if you can keep it.” –Benjamin Franklin

satchmo

I expected conversation, not personal attacks.

RedBeard

It just has a bit of an edge on it.

That might be expected in response to a somewhat unpopular opinion.

satchmo

many libertarians are conservatives and many are Republicans. Many libertarians vote Republican because it is the party, supposedly, that is more align with libertarian values. And there are plenty of libertarians who are members of the Republican party. In fact, libertarians are the ultimate conservatives; they’re going to come down on the side of limited government every time.

streiff

who claim Ross Perot siphoned off votes from Clinton preventing him from achieving a majority vote… either time.

Oz

Won’t what you are doing just get a Democrat elected?

satchmo

it is reality: the person with the most vote wins. If it were a theory, then it would be a law by now since every single election has gone to the person with the most votes. I’d say that is one well-tested theory.

This is theory: “third parties can only muck up the chance to rein in the leftists and restore some sanity to government.”

streiff

the Republican platform is against drug use, abortion, and solemnized buggery.

You may vote with whatever party you wish, but the Republican party and certainly the conservative movement is not libertarian.

satchmo

because I’m confused. I don’t see anything in my above post that could be considered an unpopular opinion, or even something that could be considered far-fetched.

It is true that many independents don’t see a difference between the two parties. I don’t think this is controversial thing to acknowledge.

It is true that GOP leadership often operates from a position of weakness and concession.

The only true opinions I see are the ones regarding gridlock and bipartisanship. I don’t see how either one could be described as unpopular, especially the bipartisanship one.

mbecker908

and there is no circumstance where a third party is a good idea. At no time has a third party ever – EVER – produced the desired result for third party proponents.

The closest you can come to making any kind of an argument in favor of this pathetic strategy might be the election of Joe Lieberman as an “Independent Democrat”. In point of fact that argument really doesn’t work either because if anything, the guy Joe lost the D primary to was really the “third party” guy and Lieberman is a down the line Dem on every issue but the War.

There is no circumstance where a third party candidate will ever beat any of the targets you list. Certainly in some instances it would guarantee a Democrat victory – specifically Snowe and Collins.

If you want to make a real case for a third party, as opposed to that pathetic little comment above that is so completely void of logic and or reason as to brand you a fool, write a diary. Please lay out in your diary what a third party platform would look like, who would comprise the leadership of said party – and that’s actual names not “people like…” – and detail just where you’re planning on getting both the money and the organization to run that party.

If you can’t do the above, that’s pretty solid evidence that all you’re doing with the silliness you’re floating here is showing off your complete lack of reasoning ability.

Cold Warrior’s plan has already gotten results – see Utah. Your plan has produced the antithesis of results – see Bill Clinton and GWB for examples in just recent history.

mbecker908

Twilight Zone far-fetched then you’ve got nothing to offer.

If people don’t see a difference between the parties then get involved and change your local party. Unless, of course, you can present a real plan as I requested just below.

satchmo

I don’t know what you’re referring to.

You’ve shifted your position a little. I didn’t claim that the Republican party or the conservative movement is libertarian. I said that many libertarians are Republicans and conservatives. This was in response to your saying that neither conservatives or Republicans are libertarians. I would also suggest that the tea party movement is rooted in libertarian values; it is neither a conservative nor a Republican movement.

mbecker908

and go find a libertarian site. I’m sure the RonPaul acolytes would just love you.

http://www.rightklik.net rightklik

I agree. Don’t waste time and political capital on third party candidates. Don’t jeopardize the future of this country with third party candidates. But watch out for statist Democrats in conservative GOP clothing.

The endgame IS very simple: Stop the statists’ agenda. Unfortunately, there are a lot of statist GOPers who can talk the conservative talk but who have no intention of walking the conservative walk. C. Crist and a host of others come to mind.

When given the opportunity to beat back the Democrats, I’m more than happy to stand with liberal Republicans like Scott Brown. But I worry about unprincipled candidates like Mark Kirk. Will they stand up to the Obama agenda? Not if it comes with any perceived risk to their careers.

I’m with Jim Demint: I’d rather have 30 Marco Rubios than 60 Arlen Specters. Instead of standing up to the statists’ agenda, left-wing Republicans push that agenda and give it “bipartisan” credibility. When statism comes to America, it will be wrapped in bipartisanship, carrying the constitution.

mbecker908

Yours isn’t even a theory, it’s wet dream.

“Third parties can only muck up…” is an absolute fact. And there is hard evidence dating back to at least Teddy Roosevelt. In no instance has a third party EVER produced a result that would be seen as desirable by said third party voters.

satchmo

in fact, I wasn’t even arguing for a third party. I never said anything about running a third party candidate against the people I’ve listed. You’re reading something into my post that just isn’t there. I listed examples of people who have not demonstrated that there is a difference between the parties. While YOU may believe there is a difference between the two parties, it is both unreasonable and irrational to think that others don’t believe that, or that they shouldn’t believe that.

I don’t know where the hostility is coming from. While the issue (whatever issue that is), as you say, has been repeatedly debated here, I’m new to the site and haven’t seen one. Clearly, though, you are more interested in put-downs and personal attacks. Don’t worry, I won’t be responding to you anymore.

Brian Hibbert

Any polling data or other information that suggests that people who vote green would have voted Republican otherwise?

mbecker908

losing argument. It loses every time. EVERY TIME.

You can “believe” anything you want. But this pile of logical crap that you’re dropping on our porch is the belief equivalent of believing that you can stand barefoot in a puddle of water and hold a live 440 volt line and be just fine because you don’t believe the basic laws of electricity.

I see you’re new here. I don’t think you’ll be here long if this is the best you can do. Ignoring winning strategy (ie CW) for a proven loser is no way to impress people with your bonafides.

swami7774

…Jeff Perry (MA-10). A true-red conservative running as such.
MA-10 is Delahunt’s district and the most Republican in the state. It’s there for the taking, and Jeff is busting his tail to take it.

Brian Hibbert

then become the staunchest party loyalists in the generals if we want to get ANY credibility and and pull in the party. I try to do that and will support any candidate who wins the Republican nomination. The alternative is a vote for bigger government (even if I vote Constitution Party for Illinois Senate over Mark Kirk).

Splitting the vote never wins and nearly always gets the person you LEAST want to see in office.

I was thrilled to see my local paper do a bit on a Green Party candidate for Senate this morning. Let the Democrats split THEIR vote!

satchmo

but Bush was my second choice in ’00. However, not everyone who voted Nader is, or was, a Greenie.

satchmo

Other than my existence is proof enough.

TxCon

when the leadership constantly caves, refuses to fight and endorses RINOs in primaries. People don’t see a difference when people campaign on conservative values and then once they get to DC, they play the “go along to get along” game.

I would choose the Reagan model and win the fight from within, but I understand the frustration.

TxCon

when the leadership constantly caves, refuses to fight and endorses RINOs in primaries. People don’t see a difference when people campaign on conservative values and then once they get to DC, they play the “go along to get along” game.

I would choose the Reagan model and win the fight from within, but I understand the frustration.

satchmo

and never in my life would I have ever considered voting for Clinton.

earlgrey

How can you have a thrid party?

Essentially, a third party is an excuse for people not making a stand. Or a way to vote your convictions without endorsing some undesirable quality in the candidtate you would ordinarily choose.

As an example say you want smaller govt., but you support gay marriage (just an example), whlie the republican does not support gay marriage (as an example) but does support limited government. So you then vote for a libertarian or someother non competitive party that holds your views exactly, but has not chance at winning. You can sleep well at night, but have in effect removed yourself from the political process.

Hard times makes for hard choices. Accept the lesser of the two evils and if the issue is really important to you work with in your own local party to explore options.

JSobieski

a conservative candidate is capable of winning a general election but incapable of winning the Republican nomination.

If the plan is to have “Great Independent Conservative Candidate A” go out and win an election, why not have them prove their viability by first running in the Republican primary?

If a conservative can’t win the Republican primary, they almost certainly aren’t going to win the general election.

Thus, a third party conservative vote is in almost all circumstances, futile, the one significant exception being when there is no primary.

http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

But if the odds are the Democrat is going to get elected anyway, then what the heck. The Republican is a disaster.

tngal

Technically its the electoral votes that matter, right? In 2000 the greenies only got 2 percent of popular votes in florida. while Bush & Gore each got 49 percent…Bush got the full 25 electoral votes for that but it could have gone the other way.

With the country more and more split down the middle in a 2 party system it bugs me that all the electoral votes can go to one candidate.

Iowa, same race 48 percent Bush 49 gore, and all 7 of their electorals went in the Dem column. So sucky.

JSobieski

many tea party people are democrats (at least in name only) who just aren’t insane nutjobs (i.e. folks with some common sense).

whiskey_sierra

>Republican party and certainly the conservative movement
>is not libertarian.

Then it is not conservative, its only a bunch of pro-war pro-large government neocons.

Ooops..that is what the Republicans HAVE become.

BTW, you can be libertarian and be anti-abortion etc all.

The key idea of libertarianism is that the only rightful purpose of government is to protect the rights, and property of the people. Protecting the unborn can easily fit in there….especially if your against the death penalty, its natural to be against abortion.

Libertarians are REAL conservatives who are no longer welcome in the Remocrat party. Barry Goldwater would not have a place in the neocon party of today.

satchmo

many people don’t see the difference? The implication, whether intended or not, is that only above average people see the difference.

RedBeard

streiff

is that there is a difference between claiming libertarians vote Republican on occasion, though not so often as to claim it is a rule, and making the definitionally false claim that there are libertarians who are conservatives and Republicans which simply isn’t true.

Nobody AFAIK, even the media, has claimed the Tea Party movement is Republican.

A bit of advice here.

Erick has laid out the site policy. You have the right to not like it, but you don’t have the right to argue against it. If you want to continue down that path you can’t say you weren’t warned.

satchmo

Republicans only favor limited government to an extent. Your gay marriage example is a fine example of this. Your limit is actually less than one, such as me, who favors limited government yet is ok with gay marriage because they don’t believe government should say who can or can’t get married.

To say voting third party removes one from the process is incorrect. Voting is the process. We’re a representative republic. Following your logic, if you vote for a Republican but he loses to a Democrat, then you’ve removed yourself from the political process. You, too, can sleep well at night, however.

I don’t believe in the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

satchmo

But I don’t believe that at all.

satchmo

This is a fantastic system that should be left alone.

earlgrey

I didn’t give my views on gay marriage in my post. That was just an example that has some basis in reality for a lot of people.

Redbirdfan

Bless your heart. It is obvious as the nose on your face that our Republican leadership will do exactly the same thing they did before. SPEND WAY TOO MUCH MONEY AND VASTLY INCREASE THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT. Make no mistake, have no illusion, that is who they are and who they will be should they return to power.

I deeply regret voting for George Bush either time, Al Gore with a mixed Congress probably would have spent less money, granted he probably would have apologized to AQ, but that might have led to a actual conservative winning in 2004, instead of having a purported conservative vastly increasing government spending. But most importantly there would have been little chance for a Marxist like BO to assume power.

I deeply regret voting for Johnny Isakson. I certainly learned my lesson and didn’t vote for Saxby Chambliss the first time I could. Any idiot who voted for Tarp without safeguards (meaning money spent as promised not for stealing auto companies) and for amnesty will never get my vote.

Yes the Democrats are worse, but it is a matter of degree and you can see the mess George Bush and his complaint big-government Republicans have gotten us into. Until the Republican party has leaders who can be counted on to actually reduce the size of government, all we are doing is slightly delaying the march towards statism.

In the military we call this SSDD.

SIConservative

Before I address the larger question, though, I want to take issue with a particular point you made. There is nothing, zero, nada, about abortion that requires a libertarian to support its legality. Libertarians are not anarchists. We believe, as do conservatives, that the responsibility of government is to protect its people, first and foremost their lives. If a libertarian thinks life begins at conception, then it is perfectly consistent for him to support legal protection of life from that point forward.

On the larger point, for starters, there’s tremendous overlap between the two, We’re not identical, that’s true, but more often than not, it’s the media attempting to divide us when no such division exists. Both support limited government. We just disagree about just how limited it should be. Now, if you want to argue that most “conservatives” are of the George W. Bush big government variety, then you are correct. I don’t think that’s the case. Most conservatives would do away with upwards of 80% and probably 90% of the federal government. Now if you’d rather pick fights about the 10-18% (there is some role) than work together on the 80-90%, that’s your prerogative. Much as I love to argue, though, I’d rather put that off until we’ve cut government spending at least in half.

As to the direction of the party, candidates defined as conservatives are generally winning on libertarian principles. They’re not talking about gay marriage, drugs, or keeping the prohibition on internet gambling (which would be illegal in my case anyway due to the left wing government in the People’s Republic of New York). In truth, they’re winning because the Democrats are losing. The issues they’re talking about, though, are reductions in the size and scope of government. This is a redirect from the focus in recent years on social issues. By shifting the focus, the Party is regaining ground, and in doing so becoming more libertarian. I think you’d do well for the time being to be glad that the libertarians are working with you to elect candidates that agree with both of us the vast majority of the time rather than picking fights that are best put off until we get a lot more of what we want in common.

satchmo

many libertarians do vote Republican because some states, such as mine, have closed primaries. I know a few libertarians who are registered Republicans so that they can vote in primaries.

“definitionally false claim that there are libertarians who are conservatives and Republicans which simply isn?t true.”

Ron Paul is an immediate example, as are the libertarians I just mentioned.

The media is most definitely claiming the Tea Party movement is Republican. Good grief, they’re saying it’s controlled by the Republican Party, that it isn’t grassroots, that it’s astroturf, etc. They’ve done nothing but try to get Republicans to denounce and distance themselves from tea partiers by creating false charges of violence and racism.

I don’t know what policy you’re talking about. I’m being both respectful and not using profanity. We’re having a good discussion, for crying out loud.

streiff

more clear.

The government exists for many more purposes that to “protect the rights and property of the people.” I’d recommend you read the Constitution as a starting point if you doubt me.

Your essential argument is that you don’t really know what libertarianism is, but you think it is cool and edgy to call yourself one, and so you do.

What did Barry Goldwater do, again? Other than get his butt kicked in 1964 and change his views on just about everything by the time he died?

One other item. Go to the “about” link on the site. Read it. Then you won’t be surprised when I drop kick you the next time “Remocrat” or “neocon” appears in one of your comments.

hazel5

Check out www.townsendfornewyork.com

satchmo

nm

satchmo

I was just saying there is a sliding scale of limited government. Believing government should be out of marriage is more limited government than believing gay marriage should be banned.

streiff

First, libertarians, at least those who run for office as such, do support legal abortion. It is in their platform. Look it up.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

Do you have some data that would indicate “most conservatives” would do away with 80-90% of the government considering Defense is about a quarter of the budget and social security another quarter?

Actually, our candidates are winning on social issues. Everytime our issues get on the ballot they win. When was the last time one of your issues won?

And just to be clear, I have absolutely no respect for libertarians or what they claim to believe and nothing would make me happier, and our party much more successful, than if you guys would take your silly philosophy to a third party or, better yet, to the democrats.

streiff

Ron Paul uses the Republican ballot line as a convenience,

On the Tea Party issue you are so wrong. Even the NY Times this week end ran a lengthy essay spelling out why it wasn’t Republican and why it couldn’t be. If you are going to comment at least give us the courtesy of not making stuff up.

If you can’t comprehend that last part then you might not have the intellectual firepower to post here. We’re not arguing the virtues of libertarians because this is not a libertarian site. I’m sure one of Ron Paul’s butt-boys runs one where you can free-wheel.

RedBeard

You say Dems are worse, but wish you had voted for Al Gore?

Interesting.

TxCon

I was stating why I think many people don’t see a difference. When you get to DC and don’t fight for the things you say you believe, then you can’t be surprised when people don’t see a difference.

Leopard1996

Would you not agree that right now the biggest threat to what libertarians believe comes from Pelosi, Obama, and Reid, more than Demint, Ryan, and others who have proven conservative credentials. My contention is the biggest threat right now is the former, and we should work to defeat that threat first. They are the enemy storming the gate. Once that enemy is defeated, then we can start looking at the fifth column in our midst and start cleaning that up.

satchmo

even if a Democrat is involved.

Leopard1996

Is it more desirable for us as people who are conservative and want to support the GOP if we supported a candidate that was strong on national defense and social issues, but wanted to spend like a drunken sailor on their agenda, or is it more desirable for someone that didn’t want the government to spend money on anything but what is mandated by the Constitution, and either didn’t have an opinion or limited the scope of regulation on the more social issues.

Redbirdfan

I didn’t say anything about voting for that jackass. As I said if he had won maybe we could have gotten a real conservative elected in 2004 and we sure as heck wouldn’t have the Marxist we have now.

satchmo

Ron Paul is not Republican or he’s not a libertarian? He can’t be both (because, he in fact, IS both).

You haven’t been paying attention to the media over the past year if you think they haven’t been trying to link the tea partiers to Republicans. There isn’t a single thing in my above post that I’ve made up.

I comprehended the last part just fine. It was just that it was vague and offered no specific nor did it point out any supposed violation of a policy.

I’m sorry that you, too, have had to resort to put-downs. I thought we were having a good discussion.

janis

Because those who actually read and follow what’s going on, instead of getting their info from the alphabet news, understand perfectly well that there’s a huge difference between the parties. It’s another subject entirely as to what the leadership is all about in BOTH parties. There are, in my personal experience, still those Dems who believed that their leadership meant what it said before the ’08 election.

They have been bitterly disappointed to find out that their party lied like dogs. With apologies to lying dogs everywhere.

From ME to You

Your assessment is right on target!!! I am still constantly amazed that they get reelected in what has become a very liberal state (at least it’s a lot more liberal than it used to be!).

I will continue to vote for Sen. Collins because having someone in the Senate who agrees with me 40% of the time is better than having someone I disagree with 100% of the time! Just look at our Representatives in the House! “Pingree (D – ME1) voting record” and “Michaud (D – ME2) voting record”!!

For the record I did NOT vote for either of those two people!!!

The influence on education from the more liberal areas of the nation has trained the current generation in the “joys” of socialism.. It has been a slow process but it has succeeded. That, coupled with the influx of people from more liberal areas (like Massachusetts!), has contributed to the liberal shift here in Maine

It will take another generation or two of education to eliminate the idea that more government is the solution to all problems.

satchmo

“The government exists for many more purposes that to ‘protect the rights and property of the people.’ I?d recommend you read the Constitution as a starting point if you doubt me.”

Um, that is the EXACT purpose of our government, and the EXACT purpose of the contract between the people and the government.

Leopard1996

Between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, or Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale. That is the difference that at least people at this site are trying to get the GOP back to. Yes I would agree that under the GHWB and GWB terms there were many things that happened that could make average people believe that there is no difference between the parties, but that is a matter of us as the “great unwashed” to change, not just blindly follow the letter after the name.

satchmo

“We believe that government should be kept out of the matter.”

That is not an endorsement for abortion. It is an endorsement for limited government and leaving a decision up to the sovereign individual.

I wish you had stated up front that you have absolutely no respect for libertarians. I would’ve saved myself quite a bit of energy.

Leopard1996

IS also responsible for maintaining the national infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc), National Defense, and a few other things that are defined by the enumerated powers. Where I think some of big L libertarian does fall flat is the belief in the role of our military and national defense. Sorry all the liberties don’t me a damn thing if a missile gets shoved up our asses tomorrow.

IJB

justfedup

It’s not necessarily a matter of party purity right now, it’s a matter of listening to those that pay the damn bills. Stopping comrade president. Understanding the Constitution. Keeping their paws outta my pocket & the kids piggy banks. I’m hoping to see McCain’s goose cooked. Maybe then Mitch & Corny John will get it. If I were Corny John I wouldn’t could on folks forgetting any time soon. Real Texans don’t forget.

streiff

murder is not left up to the “sovereign individual” that is the essence of why we have a government.

As to the latter if you had thought to read (I know, libertarians don’t do that) the purpose of the site you could have saved us both a lot of time. This is not a site for libertarians or a discussion of libertarian ideas. If you can’t be bothered to read the purpose of the site at least take the time to read the story you’re commenting on.

RedBeard

If it’s right for government to remain silent about protecting the life of unborn children, then it follows that government should have no opinion about wife beating, rape, murder, bank robbery, or shoplifting. You know, leave those choices up to the sovereign individual.

The only way around this is for you to declare that an unborn child isn’t really human.

satchmo

Because it isn’t true.

After all, many Republicans voted for TARP, didn’t they? The head of the GOP is pandering to Al Sharpton and has a tendency to play the race card.

Many people with an above average interest in politics, who don’t get their news from the MSM, do see little difference between the two parties. It is dishonest to say or think otherwise.

streiff

arguments about what is “mandated by the Constitution” have been around since 1787. From the way your comment is stated (based on my 6 years blogging here) I can probably state with a high degree of accuracy that we aren’t going to agree on what those functions are. I think the real argument is more about what activities are forbidden to the government.

Personally, I consider culture to be the core conflict facing the nation. I don’t want to be part of a libertine nation. If I have to take a choice between profligate spending and abortion on demand/gay marriage/etc. I’d say crank up the presses. But I don’t think that is a choice that anyone is being forced to make.

satchmo

FWIW. He gets the thumbs-down.

Yes, Pelosi, Obama, Reid certainly are threats to libertarian values. But then, so is McCain. Democrat-lite is still Democrat.

Leopard1996

Personally, even though I am in the “don’t care” category in regards to the majority of social issues, I am not throwing a conservative under the bus and vote 3rd party. I would rather have the guy that agrees with me 2/3 of the time then the one that agrees with me on 1/3 of the time.

What I think some folks of the Libertarian bent see are people that are in the GOP now at least are willing to pay for a stong national defense (of which I agree), legislate morality at a macro level (which I don’t agree with, some things at that level need to be left to the laws of economics and personal responsibility), and spend tax payer dollars for their agendas (which I am strongly against), instead of just sticking to the enumerated powers within the Consitiution.

satchmo

I think I see the problem.

Doc Holliday

only quibble is I would keep and increase Defense spending, border control, intelligence etc. But I would be thrilled if we cut federal spending in half and got rid of more than a few agencies.

Leopard1996

And hopefully we won’t be dealing with McCain too much longer or have him so marginalized that he either is forced to get on the train or go the dustbin of history.

As far as the initial vote for TARP, I don’t think that I can hold that vote against anybody, considering the gun to their head at the time was vote for this or we are in the Great Depression, I am not sure how I would have voted, if I did not have time to fully investigate the issue, knowing that if TARP was defeated the folks that it benefited would have made sure to screw the economy into the ground.

As I said before, destroy the enemy storming the gate first, then we deal with the traitors.

satchmo

goes hand in hand with preserving our rights and property. The bit about infrastructure is intended for local governments, not the federal. It is no secret nor surprise that Congress has twisted and perverted the Constitution for power grabs. Expanded roles that are the bastards of these perversions does not change the PURPOSE of our government.

Libertarians are not against defense, by the way.

Doc Holliday

are you saying you want to get rid of libertarian leaning conservative Republicans?

You say our conservatives are winning on social issues? That is just wrong if you mean big government control. We are winning on immigration for sure, but the reality we are gaining popularity because we are going back to our small government roots.

“And just to be clear, I have absolutely no respect for libertarians or what they claim to believe and nothing would make me happier, and our party much more successful, than if you guys would take your silly philosophy to a third party or, better yet, to the democrats.”

you go too far sir. This is peeing in the punch bowl in a thread that is about unity. Depending whom you are speaking to, which is not totally clear, you may be outing yourself as a Republican type WE might not want to keep in OUR party. please clarify, I don’t want to say things not understanding your views. Having said that, you were more clear than opaque.

Leopard1996

If given two choices, one that agrees with you 1/2 the time or someone who will never agree with you, what are you going to do, not vote, or vote for the person that doesn’t agree with you at all, or are you going to vote for the person that agrees with you 1/2 the time.

Think about the dynamics of Maine, where it is staunchly liberal, a true libertarian candidate would NEVER win in that state, never would a true CONSERVATIVE, unless they lied through their teeth and were better liars than Obama and company ever could be, I think in that case we need to take the person that agrees with me 1/2 the time, and will vote for the Conservative majority leader to set the agenda.

Doc Holliday

libertarians off all stripes believe strongly in the rule of law. They believe people should be left alone UNLESS they harm another. I would put your murder, bank robbery etc in the harm slot.

satchmo

Truly the sign of someone with an open mind willing to have an honest discussion.

Richard Mullins

Secondly, You would be dumb enough to vote against but not for the Dem. Must be the Georgian equivalent of a Medina Voter. All throughout the History of this great Country,stupid levels of mental masturbation have produced very bad results. It’s happened before and it will happen again.

P.S. You might want looking the meaning of words before you use them. Many have lost all meaning due to misuse and it seems that marxist is one of them.

streiff

I want to get rid of libertarians not libertarian leaning conservatives.

We are winning on limiting abortion (which libertarians, according to their party platform are not in favor of) we have won virtually everywhere on gay marriage though that might transitory.

I don’t have to prove my bonafides to anyone here, if I did it would be to Erick not to a bunch of people spouting ideas that they don’t even understand.

Yes the thread is about unity, but not about unity with libertarians. It is about the importance of voting conservative in the primary (not libertarian) and Republican in the general. We banned Ron Paul supporters in 2008 for a reason.

SIConservative

First of all, there’s a difference between big L Libertarians and small l libertarians. Big L Libertarians are members of the Party. Small l libertarians subscribe to the ideology. Thank you for paying attention.

Secondly, even speaking strictly of big L Libertarians, of which I am not, it’s hilarious that you cite the platform as representing all Libertarians who run for office. Following that logic, all Republicans running for office agree on the entire platform. Please, please, please tell me that Arnold Schwarzenegger and Olympia Snowe agree with the entire Republican platform.

Third, targeted ballot issues in individual states are separate from what the candidates are running on this year. In fact, there has been barely any discussion of ballot issues this year. Of course ballot measures and candidates are different anyway, but either way Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Ken Buck, and Sharron Angle, to name a few, are focusing heavily on government spending, not gay marriage, the debt, not drugs, and Obamacare, not gambling. You can like that or not, but that’s what they’re talking about. The gay marriage debate, for one, is over, in no small part due to the fact that conservatives focused too heavily on the morality of it, which many libertarians are indifferent about, rather than the process, which could have garnered a much larger coalition that would’ve included many libertarians.

As to cutting the size of the government, yes, most conservatives would likely support cutting the federal government by that much. Conservatives, real conservatives, would like to get rid of most or all programs at the federal level and would even look for ways to save on the military. For example, Congressmen have been known to put funding for new weaponry that the military doesn’t want into appropriations bills to provide jobs in their district. True conservatives would oppose such programs. Apparently, though, you think it’s conservative to oppose any cuts in military spending, even spending for which the military has no need.

As for the respect thing, the feeling is mutual, not for conservatives writ large, but to self-righteous ingorami like yourself.

satchmo

I don’t believe in abortion. I don’t think it’s right. However, that doesn’t mean I believe that we are not sovereign individuals of our bodies and that doesn’t mean that I believe government should have a say in abortion. As the platform states, people can have good-faith views from all sides. That is not an endorsement of abortion no matter how strongly you might think it is one. Believe it or not, many libertarians are against abortion. I don’t have to believe that a fetus is not human in order to believe that government should be out of the issue. Of course wife beating, rape, murder, bank robbery, shoplifting infringes upon the life and liberties of a sovereign individual. That is not a gaping hole in logic.

Let’s try this: the only way around this is for you to declare that we are all properties of the state and we are not free individuals.

I’m not looking to get into a debate about abortion or a moral argument; this is about the role of government and the role of a limited government. Nothing more.

Richard Mullins

It’s just that you don’t seem to listen much. Might want to do less talking and more listening. Your willful ignorance is getting in the way.

satchmo

Ron Paul supporters were banned? Is Rand Paul aware of this?

satchmo

Well done.

Doc Holliday

First of all I never asked you to prove anything, I know you, I was just surprised by some of what you said in that post. It seems you are really up in arms over abortion and that is fine, but I don’t see abortion as a major issue in this coming election considering the make up of the Supreme Court and the Executive Branch.

You mention Ron Paul but he is pro life. My point in mentioning this is that people off all political affiliations still are not all the same. And I can never agree with your hope that Libertarians would leave our party. Of course I don’t believe big L Libertarians are in our party, because then they would not be Libertarians.

word games aside, I even want Democrats to vote Republican

SIConservative

Spamming RP supporters were banned, and rightly so. I had been around for a while and supported his candidacy, frequently debating people on here about it, writing posts about it, etc. Few of the regulars ever saw eye to eye with me on those posts, one including Norma McCorvey being an exception, but nobody ever suggested kicking me off the team. As much as anyone, probably more than anyone, I was happy to see the fly-bys who deified him and didn’t engage in any constructive discussion or activity booted. There’s a difference between someone who works as part of a coalition to get what is agreed upon and someone who wants everybody to agree with him on everything and if not throws a tantrum. The second is what you are doing right now.

Doc Holliday

and get us to fight each other, he is doing a good job really. well played.

satchmo

since what that tells me is 1) the man was unable to stick with his convictions (if he had them in the first place), and 2) he isn’t smart enough to see through the b.s. Your average joe knew the Great Depression thing was a load of bunk.

How do we know number 2 is true? The reaction to those who voted for TARP, tea parties booing TARP supporters, the tea party movement in general.

streiff

I know. I was part of the decision to do that. Please don’t beclown yourself further.

Unsurprisingly, you’re wrong on the second count, too.

I’m opposed to libertarians in general because their philosophy is loopy. Arguably, it might work in a nation and a world where everyone was a mature adult but the moment you toss the first sociopath into the works it has to break down. This is aside from the fact that libertarianism was not a governing philosophy of any of the Founding Fathers and is foreign to our Constitution, history, and traditions.

If libertarians want to vote GOP, fine. But I don’t think they are any more of our coalition that the Hillary-PUMA people were in 2008. They are a different political philosophy and they have no place in our discussions.

dwscho

Couldn’t agree more.

SIConservative

satchmo

Not the least of which is that this, too, is a false choice; it is not either/or. If it came down to it, I would write-in.

Again, “conservatives” voting for Snowe/Collins just gives us more of the same. It’s self-fulfilling. This is the true losing argument.

SIConservative

RedBeard

…most certainly hinges upon a belief that the unborn child is not a human being, deserving of equal protection under the law. If I am wrong about that, then you must, by the same reasoning, oppose government getting involved in cases of adult murder by writing laws to oppose it.

streiff

what parts of the “Big L” platform did you disagree with? Out of curiosity.

That’s the difference between a political party, like the GOP and Dems who have core values but realize they have to win votes to govern. Just in case you missed it that was the subject of Erick’s story of why we vote conservative in the primary but we don’t waste our time voting for looney fringe parties, like “Big L” libertarians in the general.

The fact that you’ve made this particular diatribe shows that reading comprehension is not one of your constant companions.

Your take on issues is simply counterfactual (and for the record, I don’t know that “gambling” is a social conservative issue so I don’t know why you bring it up). The gay marriage debate really isn’t over and libertarians really weren’t a factor in it one way or the other.

Before dealing with spending, you aren’t a “real conservative” by your own admission, otherwise you wouldn’t be making this post, so you aren’t in any position to speak about what a “real conservative” is as there are a wide variety of conservatives, all of them “real” but not all of them believe the same thing. As to the budget, your assertion that any number of people outside Ron Paul’s HQ and hospitals for the criminally insane would advocate cutting spending by 80% is just stupid. My views on defense spending aside, because I didn’t state any, I used defense and SS as two easy slices of the federal budget to demonstrate the level of ignorance you were professing, the two add up to 50% which is less that the “80 or 90%” cut that you claim “real” conservatives support.

satchmo

*

streiff

Rand thinks Ron is crazy on a lot of issues.

streiff

read this link

Then hit the contact button to send your apology and ask for reinstatement. If not, bugger off.

Doc Holliday

I was here too. New people who signed on to spam about Ron Paul caused the directors to ban all mention of Paul by anyone who had been a member less than 6 months. People who had been here longer than six months were allowed to support Paul and talk about Paul. Very few of these people supported Paul.

I talked about Paul a lot, I called him every name in the book.

satchmo

Strangely, I’m interested to know.

Also, the Republican Party did not exist at the time of our founding, so I’m not sure what the timeline of libertarian thought has to do with anything. If, however, you truly believe that none of our founding fathers held libertarian beliefs – even if a name hadn’t been ascribed to them – then I would strongly suggest you read some Thomas Jefferson. You could start with the Declaration of Independence.

satchmo

“That?s the difference between a political party, like the GOP and Dems who have core values but realize they have to win votes to govern.”

translation: GOP and Dems must cave on these bedrock core values for political expediency; votes can – and should – be bought. Libertarians have the nerve to stick to their principles.

Doc Holliday

by Bill Frist as a ploy to gain favor with Iowa social conservatives hurt our party badly with non big government socons. It may not have been a “huge issue” but it was a very clear example of how the Bush, Frist, and Kyle team had given up on Goldwater/Reagan conservatism. Other more well known examples are NCLB, steel tarrifs, prescription drugs, Schiavo, and some Patriot act proposals.

After we got drubbed in 2006, there has been a fight between big government Repubs and libertarian-conservative Repubs. Guess, what, we are winning and winning but good! Heck, we have Erick supporting a Paul lol.

BTW, I have issued with Rand, but I had to rub that in since you have been so harsh in this thread.

RedBeard

Ryan makes one vote that you don’t like, so he’s now your enemy? That’s the same sort of illogic that caused some conservative folks to refuse to vote for McCain, helping to give us the current unmitigated disaster in the White House.

Achance

from being swamped by the big ones. Of course, the Left really wants proportional allocation of EC votes because even a losing bid will give more EC votes to a Lefty from CA or NY than carring all the EC votes from the, say, inter-mountain West.

The left would like ALL representation to be proportional so that the urban Sodoms can electorally overwhelm the rubes and bitter clingers in flyover country.

Christine (Trelaina)

That should be the everlasting mantra.

I hope that Conservatives in Maine do try to find the most conservative possible candidate and promote them.

However, if Snowe/Collins wins the primary, so be it.

streiff

1. I didn’t say the GOP was at the founding. Again, please practice a bit of reading comprehension.

2. Being a native Virginian, educated at a Virginia university I’ve read more than a little Jefferson. There is very little in any of his writings, much less his tenure as either governor of Virginia or president, to suggest he was anything other the fairly elitist.

3. The Constitution is not libertarian. It doesn’t espouse “small government” hence the 10 amendments.

4. Founding Fathers passed the Alien and Sedition Act. They were small l liberals and they didn’t believe in democracy.

5. Libertarianism, in any form we discuss today, dates from the mid-19th century at the earliest.

RedBeard

124 posts in this thread, and counting.

Satch, you’re wrong about a whole lot (and right here and there) but I give you high marks for trying to defend your position.

Carolyne

Many of the Tea Partiers have chosen to work from within the Republican Party and from the bottom up. They know a third party simply will not work. They are running for local and state offices. They are also running for, and in some cases won, Precinct and State Central Committee membership. These are the people who decide who the Republican candidates will be.
And as a Tea Partier from the beginning, the movement isn’t based on specifically Libertarian values. It is a somewhat diverse group who simply have in common a dissatisfaction with governement and the failure of our elected officials to respond to the will of the people.

streiff

I’m just saying that opposition to gambling is much more of a regional issue, and quite honestly probably more popular with Democrats that Republicans, it isn’t a social conservative issue. For the record, I think gambling is just a tax imposed on people who failed math in high school.

I have issues with Rand Paul to, I question his judgment because of his having a neo Nazi on his campaign staff, but he’s running as a Republican and that’s what counts.

Achance

voters are simply naive or just stupid, so who knows how they might vote if they didn’t have their splinter party refuge. In my experience self-described libertarians range from dopers to survivalists to tin hat whackos. Self-described Greens are either young and still mind-numbed from their “education” or they’re such whacked out lefties that even the Democrats won’t put up with them.

Brian Hibbert

but it’s the only method that will work in the end. 3rd parties are a non-starter.

We need to take the party back at the local and state levels so we make sure we have good conservative candidates that can win.

satchmo

It doesn’t have anything to do with the unborn at all. It has everything to do with whether we own our bodies or whether the government does. It has everything to do with the government. Again, I?m not looking to get into a debate about abortion, especially since I’ve stated that I’m opposed to it.

So are we properties of the state or not?

And your extrapolation is not logical. Extrapolating it to the criminalization of prostitution and drug use would be.

constitutionalconservative

I’ll always reserve the right to occasionally voice my strategic displeasure with RINOs at the ballot box, but ultimately, politics is a team sport– everything we do has to be focused on

(1) Making sure our team is led by real conservatives

and

(2) Making sure we have an action plan to build a durable majority for the Republican Party.

satchmo

Three times in a single thread that you’ve made an unprovoked reference to a homosexual act. Interpret it how you wish.

satchmo

Your argument is that you’re opposed to libertarians partly because, according to you, “libertarianism was not a governing philosophy of any of the Founding Fathers and is foreign to our Constitution, history, and traditions.”

I merely followed your train of logic and pointed out that the Republican Party was not around at our nation’s founding and not a single one of the Founding Fathers belonged to the Republican Party. Therefore, following your logic, I would think you’d be opposed to the Republican Party as well. This is your argument, after all.

As for your points 2 -5…WOW.

Your ignorance regarding the Constitution is astonishing. The 10 amendments LIMIT THE GOVERNMENT and guarantee our inherent rights from government intrusion and infringement. The Bill of Rights do NOT expand government. WOW.

You are not arguing from a position of knowledge. Not anywhere in this thread.

hickorystick

Some kooky idea that a piece of paper proscribes the limits of government, and outside of that were free to do as we please.

Carolyne

I know for a fact that’s happened in Ohio. There were 11 new members from the Tea Party ranks elected to the Republican State Central Committtee, and some were close races. Now there is still a long way to go, but it sent a message to the Party elites that the “times they are a’changing.”

And thanks to the Ohio Project and the Ohio Liberty Council, groups are now working on getting signatures to get the Healthcare Freedom Amendment to the Ohio Constituion on the ballot. They were successful in the courts, even though the ever-popular Brunner fought it. So the fight goes on.
.http://theohioproject.com/

satchmo

the neo-Nazi were running with an R behind his name? Could you look past his neo-Nazism because, after all, the R is what counts?

tngal

But consider….Obama won 24 states which means 26 went for McCain. Which could equate to a plurality of states lost. How fair is that to the fly overs?

(Achance, don’t pay any attention to me, Some days I’d argue with a telephone pole, just ’cause debate clubs are fun.)

chuckl

“the Senate of the United States shall be compose of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years;and each senator shall have one vote.”

In the event of a vacancy, the legislature may provide that the executive of the state may make temporary appoointments until an election may be held.

satchmo

just as you put words in the mouth of the guy above who mentioned a Gore win in 2000.

I didn’t say that Ryan is my enemy. I addressed the bogus “conservative credentials” claim. That isn’t illogic. And I can’t believe you’re trying to put up McCain as a defense. Perhaps if people like you and the RNC DIDN’T put up candidates like McCain, then more people would’ve voted, and more people would’ve voted for the (R). What is illogical is this ridiculous circular reasoning RINOs and RINO supporters keep resorting to.

chuckl

an objection to the candidates offered by the two major parties when both the candidates and their parties policies are completely unacceptable.

earlgrey

SIConservative

“Those with accounts more than six months old may proceed as normal.”

RedBeard

…the change from states electing senators via their legislature to the current system of a statewide popular vote.

The difference may seem minor, but the original wording more closely followed the Founders’ concept of representative government.

satchmo

But you didn’t provide the entire amendment, and trying to hinge your argument on a vacancy based upon the word “may” and not “shall” is pretty weak.

There is no denying that the 17th took the power of selection from the state and gave it to the populace. “elected by the people thereof” is pretty dang clear.

RedBeard

satchmo

nt

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

satchmo

eom

sailingaway

is ” people like Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, Danny Tarkanian, Ken Buck, Chuck DeVore, Pam Gorman, Sean Duffy, Jeff Duncan, Dennis Ross, and others ? ”

One of the huge mistakes agenda driven media continuously makes is the assumption that independents are ‘moderate’ as opposed to people who merely feel disenfranchised by the two parties. Because the parties begin to stand for nothing. May that not happen again.

toadold

So if a Democrat Rep. is looking not only at the loss of the House but also the loss/absence of RINO’s that would “work” with him will he have even more encouragement to not run in the mid-terms? It will be much more difficult to deliver the pork.

If the RINO’s that are left will be so few in the House that they won’t be able to get their way by sucking up to the Democrats and blackmailing their fellow Republicans, will they start thinking about retiring?

The RNC and other seem to be having a donation problem. It looks like they are being bypassed by both individual donors and new financing groups.

Leopard1996

I believe that is what streiff is saying. That the Constitution by itself did not call for “Small” government, hence that is what the Bill of Rights was all about. Many of the founders stated that they would not ratify the Constitution unless the original Bill of Rights was drafted.

However, I do believe that the people that are voted into office need to look at Article 1 Section 8, and make sure their laws are part of the Enumerated Powers

Aaron Gardner

Leopard1996

What do you think a Libertarian would do if they attempted to pass a law to say take away the FDA’s ability to classify drugs and effectively legalizing drugs which is a Libertarian belief that I agree with, under the situation where they had a slight majority in the house, a non-filibuster proof majority in the senate, and a non-libertarian president, and someone from the liberal wing of one of the minority groups stated that your legislation will be filibustered if you do not include drug addiction treatment at the government’s expense.

From what I can see there are two choices;

1. Let the bill die, hence the Libertarian Party can’t deliver on their campaign promise of legalizing drugs.

2. Make the deal, and now the Libertarians have now compromised on their principles of the limited government because the Libertarians helped vote in new government entitlement.

I draw this scenario to say that as someone with libertarian leanings and beliefs you cannot paint with the brush of, “GOP and Dems must cave on bedrock core values for political expediency;….Libertarians have the nerve to stick to their principles.” Unless you can truly say that Libertarians could achieve any of their goals without allowing a compromise on another portion of their beliefs.

streiff

the Bill of Rights is called a Bill of Rights because it limits the power of the FEDERAL government in certain areas. The Bill of Rights does not limit the power of the state government to interfere, or at least they didn’t until incorporation doctrine became all the rage.

There is no conflict between the Constitution and a European Social Democracy as the issues of social welfare, etc aren’t addressed or even mentioned much less forbidden.

Reading comprehension is still your problem not mine. It was your rather silly argument that somehow libertarianism was rooted in the Constitution. It is not incumbent upon me to defend an argument I’m not making.

streiff

Republicans and Democrats win elections and govern. Libertarians set on the sideline and snivel about being ignored and disrespected.

streiff

have never been tried is that they can’t get a majority of the people to vote for them. Or even more than 4 or 5 percent.

When you have the same or less electoral impact as Lyndon LaRouche it should tell you something.

Leopard1996

streiff

I’d think this is beneath even the vestiges of dignity you still maintain.

Read Erick’s post again. The answer is in there.

SIConservative

First, I’m not a big L Libertarian. Even if I were, I probably wouldn’t have wasted time reading the platform, just as very few Republicans or Democrats do with theirs.

Second, in case you missed it, I haven’t advocated voting for the Libertarian Party.

As for internet gambling, those pushing it were largely the Dobson crew. It wasn’t so much regional as parochial. If you don’t consider gambling a social conservative issue, that’s fine, but plenty of others do. I should say at this point that I have tremendous respect for Dr. Dobson, his political work on the pro-life cause, and his social (i.e. non-political) activism. On some other political matters, like internet gambling, we disagree, but I’m happy to work with him on other things.

On gay marriage, you’re right, libertarians haven’t been especially involved. One of the reasons for this is that many – though certainly not all – conservatives have focused on the merits rather than the process. To the extent that they focus on process, i.e. judges not dictating state laws, libertarians are with them. When they have focused on the “traditional family” argument, though, libertarians haven’t paid much attention. Mind you, as a religious matter, I’d agree with them. As a political matter, I care abut the process but not so much the policy.

As for “real conservative”, no, I’m not, I’m a libertarian. The name is from when I signed up five years ago and had just learned what a blog was. I stumbled upon the site and gave little thought to the screen name, though, to be sure, I did identify as a conservative at the time. I had expected to comment once or twice within a couple of days and then forget all about the site. As you can see, that’s not the way things happened (though you probably wish it were).

As to getting rid of 80-90% of federal spending, many conservatives who aren’t running for office would like to get rid of Social Security for any number of reasons, one being that we can’t afford it. I’d bet that if the self-identified conservatives on this site were polled, at least a majority would like to see it phased out, though I’m sure there would be disagreement over how to do that. I expect that they’d also do away with Medicare and Medicaid, along with whatever other programs they deemed unconstitutional. Now, unlike libertarians, they might favor replacements for the programs at the state level. That’s fine. We can fight over that later. For now, though, libertarians and conservatives can work together to stop the expansion of government, eliminate what parts we can (e.g. Department of Education, maybe Obamacare), audit the Fed, simplify the tax code, and limit the powers of the courts.

All that said, I can’t understand for the life of me why you want to have this fight with those who agree with you on the overwhelming majority of issues currently before us rather than focusing on those who don’t agree on anything. It’s counter-productive. As President Lincoln said, “I will stand with any man when he is right, but will depart from him when he goes wrong.” Heed the advice.

Leopard1996

It’s the B.S. purity that I attack. Many libertarian ideas are worth exploring. Including lessening some regulations on things that should not be regulated, and letting a federalist approach occur for some of the other social issues. However, the whole purity thing from their perspective is not a reality and they either need to compromise on some things and be part of the total solution, or need to get out of the way and not work to undermine the movement that is in 2/3 agreement with them.

It just seems that most of the big L, libertarians would rather focus their fire on the GOP then on the true enemies of the libertarian beliefs which in my opinion are the current crop of scumbag Democrats that are in office.

Leopard1996

RedBeard

If you favor government staying completely away from abortion, yet favor government addressing adult murder by criminalizing it, then you have to be acknowledging the right of due process for one class and denying it exists for another.

http://www.laborunionreport.combrand/brhttp://www.laborunionreport.blogspot.com LaborUnionReport

I hate voting. I do it…but hate it because I only vote to keep the worse of two evils out of office. Though I lean far more to the “libertarian” side, my GOP votes are purely as a defensive block move (to keep the socialist Dems out).

Is it okay to be a Libertarian* who doesn’t do drugs, isn’t a social anarchist, doesn’t like abortion, but doesn’t think the government should be the arbiter of those things?

Is there a label there?

* Bigger believer in Ayn Rand’s Objectivism than either of the three “main” socio-political party doctrines, but that gets way too confusing for posts.

Oops. My coffee spilled out of my tin hat….or cup

RedBeard

Social welfare is not the province of the feds because it is an activity not granted to the feds by the states. Multiple times James Madison made this point when explaining the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights is simply an affirmation of a number of preexisting rights, not the creation of them.

streiff

That case was made at the Louisiana Purchase and the funding of Lewis and Clark — neither of which were authorized. Jackson made that case when he put the Bank of the United States out of business. A bank that was chartered by James Madison, one of the Founding Fathers.

It is a valid philosophical concept but it isn’t a fact.

I know a lot of people believe that, I’m just not one of them.

Scope

the gay marriage debate isn’t over, and that libertarians weren’t a part of it is a crock. Thirty nine individual states had the gay marriage issue on their ballots, and in every case it was voted down by the voters in those states, including the very liberal state of CA. If libertarians were not a part of it, it is either because they didn’t bother to vote on the initiative, or they refuse to take no for an answer. If you choose to argue that the state’s laws should be ignored, and the majority of citizens in those states, because you don’t agree with it, then every single other argument you make about anything is moot and misinformed. This has always been a problem with many libertarians, mainly the Ron Paul types, for you people, it’s your way or the highway. That’s why the “party” has never gained any traction, nor will they ever. The slob doesn’t exist that can pass your purity tests.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

the Libertarian Party types, but even there, aren’t we better off reaching out to them and pointing out how the liberals/democrats want to control their lives in and out of the bedroom and on the pro-life issue (I, as you know am a self identified so-con pro-lifer) advocating federalism so that after Roe is overturned we allow states to set their own policy?

ps I also self identify as a neo-con and defense hawk.

http://www.laborunionreport.combrand/brhttp://www.laborunionreport.blogspot.com LaborUnionReport

“Not the least of which is that this, too, is a false choice; it is not either/or. If it came down to it, I would write-in.”

That, in itself, give a vote to the opposition.

In 1992, I voted for Perot (I couldn’t support a Republican at the time, as I was transitioning out of the union movement and the Reagan/GOP was “the enemy”, busting PATCO and all)…BUT I had started understanding liberals and socialism and knew it was wrong, so I couldn’t vote for Clinton either. Thus, my vote went to Perot.

That election night, as Perot danced on the stage to Patsy Cline’s crazy, I realized that voting for a third party in contemporary America is crazy.

It may seem like a false dichotomy right now, but until the country is saved, it’s the only choice you have at the moment.

RedBeard

I could be wrong, but I don’t think so.

And talk about putting words (or deeds) in someone’s mouth, please refrain from falsely saying that I had anything to do with putting up John McCain. I dislike and dustrust McCain, and always have. My point, which you seem to have missed entirely, was that McCain became our only possible choice after he won the nomination in 2008. Those conservatives who stayed home because McCain wasn’t a very good choice are the ones who helped make sure we got stuck with an abominable president instead of just a mediocre one.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

reading your comment here, despite our disagreements on the number of abortion-focused northeastern moderate republicans.

Let me also make clear that despite my self identification as a so-con, neo-con war hawk, which I do in that order for the purpose of refuting stereotypes, I am first and foremost a conservative, whose main definition is small government/free market/low tax fiscal conservatism.

I also have many liberatarian leanings and just last year finally leaned toward drug legalization. However, given the legalization of drugs in Mexico, yet with drug war escalating, the argument for drug legalization seems weaker today. Your thoughts.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

streiff

doesn’t necessarily mean they’re right.

But while you’re congratulating yourself and a couple of other people are assigning me views, read this and see if you think you are so far ahead of the curve.

Scope

difference now are simply blind and clueless. Almost all of the arguments here by the snatchamos are accusing all and every Republican as being a part of the problem, and that every last one of them are not acceptable. Even Ryan got a thumbs down because he made one mistake. He’s the only voice of reason and rationality as to the economic future, yet he can never be forgiven for his TARP mistake. What a way to insure that the Communists/Marxists remain in power and complete the destruction of the US.

The problem with the snatchamo type libertarians is that there is no one perfect enough for them. Hell they can’t even come up with anyone perfect enough to run on their party ticket that has been even remotely electable to the majority of US citizens.

As I said above,

Achance

as libertarians don’t know what they are and few know much about politics except for being against this or that. We have them coming out our ears here in Alaska, especially up in Sarah Palin’s stomping grounds, the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. Going back to the days when a bunch of Texas militia types moved out there in the ’60s to escape the tender mercies of USAG Rober Kennedy. Many say N. Bunker Hunt bankrolled that immigration. Then oil development brought all sorts of tax protester-type libertarians and other aginners. Mostly what they were against was leaving any more of their fat paycheck in Alaska than they could help and they sure didn’t want to pay no stinkin’ taxes. Politics in the Mat-Su Valley and also in the Fairbanks suburbs is dominated by the “aginner” types. Lately they’ve mostly voted with the Rs, but a lot vote Alaska Independence or Constitution Party and in some districts there is enough Libertarian Party organization to put up a candidate. Back in the ’70s and ’80s the Libertarians could actually elect members of the Legislature, but all that did was help cement Democrat control for awhile until the Republicans out-muscled the Libertarians. Now the libertarians, small and big L, are trying to muscle into the Republican Party in the guise of being Tea Partiers. Didn’t work this time but there’s always next time.

conservativecrusade

3rd party supporters would cringe if they really knew what they were supporting and only supported a third party in the first place due to a strong distaste for how the main parties have acted. For example(s):

Most green party supporters or sympathizers would run for the hills if the knew the true agenda of that party and the cost it would take to bring about what they want. Many are environmentalist but not radical ones.They have bought into the whole “earth is being killed by humans” crap, but in no way would want to see some of the green party agenda brought to fruition.

Same goes for libertarians. Many buy into the upfront claims of the party, but have no idea that the truth behind the party is that they support abortion, legalization of all drugs, and other very kooky ideas. It matters little that some of the lib reps do not support some of these ideas, they have still pledged to a party that does. I would dare say that a vast majority of libertarians would jump ship if A) the repubs actually stuck to the principles the party was founded on and B) if they actually took the time to look at the party principles. Most understand that Ron Paul is a nut job, but most really do not understand the backwards and dangerous principles of the party. Most would be quite angry if the party was able to take control and started to implement these radical BS ideals.

Fact is, Eric is right. We have to ignore the ignorance of the third party, stick to the one party, understand it is a long term solution and that we will have to hold our noses while we vote sometimes for awhile, but that over time, if we stay strong, we can rid the party of the moderate or liberals and take the party back to what it was meant to be. Splitting votes at this time is not only lacking in responsibility, but is also ignorant. Rome was not built in a day, and cleaning up the repub party will not be done in a day either. But putting your support behind a third party that supports such ignorant ideals is just as bad as voting in a dem!

SIConservative

I’m starting to go blind trying to follow this thread, so I apologize if I’m making a mistake in the line of comments. I think your comment was a response to my comment made at 1:53. If I’m wrong, please correct me.

When speaking of gay marriage and saying that libertarians weren’t involved, I was speaking of libertarians as an ideological group, not as a party and not as individual voters. Throughout I have been talking about small l libertarians, not big L Libertarians. There’s a big difference between those who espouse the ideology and those who organize with the Party.

Further, I haven’t argued that state’s laws should be ignored. I indicated that I did care about the process but not really about the policy. As such, when you focus on policy, I’m with you. When you focus on morality, as a political matter, I don’t care. As a moral matter, again, I’m with you.

Finally, I’ve been making the case throughout the thread for unity between conservatives and libertarians.

RedBeard

…but didn’t want Gore? Ok, now I get your meaning.

We probably agree fully here, but I would not say that I regret my votes for Bush. That would make it seem like I wanted the other alternative, and the gasbag Gore would have been awful.

Actually I much prefer saying that I voted against Gore and Kerry rather than for Bush.

http://www.laborunionreport.combrand/brhttp://www.laborunionreport.blogspot.com LaborUnionReport

….until I heard him speak.

He is the Dennis Kucinek (sp) of the GOP.

satchmo

Voting for Person A is not a vote for Person B. It is a vote for Person A. Restated, if you didn’t vote for the winner, then you’ve wasted your vote. Voting for Person A didn’t siphon votes from Person C; voting for Person C siphoned votes from Person A! (see how that plays both ways?)

I don’t deny that the two major parties have a stranglehold on the system. Naturally, they’ve created rules/laws to firmly establish that they remain entrenched in their position. No one, however, can deny that the winner receives the majority of votes.

As for choice, I am only permitted to vote for the representative of my district and my two senators. I can’t cast votes for other candidates in other states. Sure, I could donate, but no amount of money can guarantee an outcome. Influence, perhaps, but not guarantee. Only votes guarantee the outcome.

If the goal is to attract independents, and I think it would be since independents swing elections, then the argument that you should vote for someone just because they have an (R) behind his name or vote for the person conventional wisdom says has the best chance is a losing one. That isn’t going to attract voters.

caseyblackhawk

If the RNC doesn’t get onboard, the Tea parties will simply sabotage the Fall elections and the DAMNocRAts will dodge the train, and only be lightly wounded by the debris from the wreck of the Republican Party. The problem with Revolutions is that so few good people are willing to get onboard in time. Their pride and brio gets in the way, and they end up getting run over.

I am a Conservative. And for 35 years I have been a Republican. But I see the Party in real danger of being the hardest-hit victim on the up-coming elections. And that will end the Conservatives only chance to actually control government. When Republicans run on Conservative principles, they win…always. But there has been a cadre of Liberal Republicans, known as the Rockefeller Republicans, for a century. They talk Populist while trying to advance Statism and Socialism.

Conservatism is about minimizing government, lowering public spending and taxing, and maximizing the freedom to succeed and achieve ones’ dreams. Notice that I didn’t say help dreams come true. That is NOT what Conservatism is about. It is about keeping the field level and free of obstructions….like overweening regulation, confiscatory taxation, and wealth transfer. But, lest we forget…Wealth Transfer from the worker to the Entitlement Class is no more onerous than Wealth transfer to the Capital Class. And the late, unlamented “Bailouts” are a case in point. Look at the banks that cleaned up. Almost to an institution they are owners of the Federal Reserve and it’s Branches. Their Evil Pet has the power to print unlimited quanitites of American Dollars, with zero backing, and lend it to them at zero in terest. But, instead, we GAVE them the money and gave the bill to the Working Man. Now it comes out that many of them were shorting real estate and reaped vast fortunes…while collecting “Bailouts” because of the “Bad Loans” that they were shoveling into Derivatives and passing off on public, quasi-public, and trusts for which they were responsible.

What part of “Fiduciary Misfeasance, Malfeasance, and Non-feasance” don’t our leaders understand? How is there not a 100 year audit of the Fed and it’s Branches undwerway; and wholesale hearings on bank’s charters underway? How come there is not even a peep about it? Could it be because the owners of the Fed also are majority owners of all the old Rust Belt Fishwrapper Media…and majority owners of the Networks squatting on the “public airwaves”…and in charge of the Information Filters?

I am the grandchild of Grangers…Prairie Populists. And I consider this no less than a breach of faith by the Republican Party. I have already given up any faith I ever had in the Party of Treason, since it was hijacked by DAMnocRATs. But by Harry..if we lose the Republican Party to the coin clippers, we deserve a Revolution. …and all the blood, sweat and tears that that will engender.

satchmo

Due process is not the topic.

satchmo

But even saying that the Constitution is not about limited government until the Bill of Rights came along is just as untrue. While the Constitution may not expressly called for small government, it’s existence IS small government; it’s very nature is small government. Some of the bills, for example the 2A, were believed to be such an inherent right that it was an insult to even include it. If it had been left off as some of its supporters wanted, that wouldn’t suddenly make the purpose of the Constitution “big government”.

Scope

with Republican/conservative support would be the party’s contribution to the Progressive goals of dumbing down and demoralizing America.

Until the legal pill or method is found, and forced on everyone, that will insure that everyone moderate their illegal drug intake, the only accomplishment in legalizing illegal drugs will be the increased number of jobs available for the rehab clinics and morgues.

satchmo

I didn’t say anything about the Bill of Rights in regards to state governments.

Like it or not, the Constitution, our other founding documents – even the very existence of this country – is rooted in libertarian values.

http://www.libertarianism.org/ex-3.html

irishgirl

for laying this out there and for clarifying. I admit it makes me very nervous when Tea Parties (and yes, I attend tea parties myself) start talking about a “Tea Party” vote, party, etc. 3rd parties never work.

zuckey6

Schumer will not retire. Ndew Yorkers must retire him This is Californian`s statement.

satchmo

“aren?t we better off reaching out to them and pointing out how the liberals/democrats want to control their lives in and out of the bedroom and on the pro-life issue”

We already know this. That’s why we’re libertarian. Unfortunately, we also see that the Republicans want to control in-and-out-of-the-bedroom as well.

streiff

can’t be true despite the highly neutral website you quote.

The violence you are doing to our history by claiming that a philosophy that was foreign, and anathema, to most of the Founders is the basis for our Constitution is just incredible.

Why don’t you quote stormfront or some other credible source next time.

http://www.laborunionreport.combrand/brhttp://www.laborunionreport.blogspot.com LaborUnionReport

“..in the ?70s and ?80s the Libertarians could actually elect members of the Legislature, but all that did was help cement Democrat control for awhile until the Republicans out-muscled the Libertarians.”

satchmo

But certainly on local levels. Paul, libertarian at heart, has often introduced libertarian-oriented legislation that winds up dying in committee. I don’t think any libertarian would fault a Libertarian congressmen for not being able to pass legislation if that congressman were in the minority.

As for drug addiction treatment, many libertarians believe that the money used to fight the “war on drugs” would be better spent on treatment, and I agree with that.

Your scenario doesn’t accurately reflect libertarian positions.

SIConservative

Given how much argument has already taken place in a unity thread, I’m a bit hesitant to respond, but I will.

I think drug legalization is probably the way to go. To be clear, I don’t use drugs. Never have. I don’t plan to start, but don’t think I could honestly say “Never would I under any circumstances.”

That said, I think people can use them relatively responsibly. As a comparison, I’m a heavy drinker, but I don’t drive after even a single drink. I would strongly support heavy penalties for drug-related offenses, which is to say other crimes that people committed while using drugs, including driving under the influence. A standard part of any health curriculum should obviously include the ill effects of drugs, and more importantly parents should make their children aware of what could happen if they use them. I think legalization could also make it harder for children to access them. As with tobacco, it wouldn’t make it impossible, but it would create an above-ground market, thus largely eliminating the underground trade that exists now. The Portuguese have had great success with their decriminalization policy – drops in drug-related deaths and STD transmissions.

You can read more about that if you like here: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080.

As to the drug war, we’d save the money spent on trying to keep drugs from coming into the country, and the money spent on drugs could go to more worthy sources, e.g. farmers in Guatemala rather than unsavory characters in Columbia.

All that said, drug legalization is a very minor issue for me, probably in large part due to the fact that I don’t use them. Now, internet gambling legalization is one I could go on for ages about…

Even so, neither issue will matter much unless the government gets a handle on its out of control spending and monetary policy that are about to bankrupt the country.

satchmo

you’re saying there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats then?

Doc Holliday

in our party, Ron Paul hurt the cause of libertarian minded conservatives. Like anyone who supports libertarian views, he was right about a lot of things, because freedom is always right. The problem were the things he was wrong about, they were deal killers.

janis

But I sure as hell don’t want other folks’ bedroom preferences being a part of my grandchildren’s school curriculum. Nor do I want to be forced to give even the appearance of agreeing with and holding up as “normal and natural” the behavior of those whose preferences I don’t even want to hear about, much less have paraded in front of us daily.

I am of the old-fashioned opinion that what happens in the bedroom is between the ones who are there– and they should keep their mouths shut about it outside the bedroom. Just as I don’t demand that I be given special consideration because I’m a heterosexual woman, I refuse to accept that any other sexual orientation should be considered in the political realm whatsoever.

streiff

reading comprehension could be your friend if you would let it.

They are the same in that they are both successful political parties.

They are the same in that about 95% of all votes cast in each election are cast for one or the other of them.

They are the same in that they both represent political philosophies which appeal to most people.

So it that’s what you mean, yes, they are the same. They’re winners.

RedBeard

Maybe one made of hickory or oak.

Doc Holliday

and regretted it to his dying day. The Constitution certainly does support small government, the 10 amendments are part of the Constitution that was ratified.

The reason so many conservatives add the small l libertarian prefix is because leaders of our party have moved so far towards accepting statism. If all conservatives believed in the winning ideas of Goldwater-Reagan there would be no need for any conservative to call himself “libertarian”. The libertarian prefix is a reaction to Socons who use big government power in the same ways as the Democrats do, just for different purposes.

If the Constitution was followed this would be a very different nation with a hell of a lot less government intrusion in our personal lives, including oppressive taxation.

satchmo

That drugs may be legal there doesn’t change the fact that they are illegal here and it doesn’t erase the resultant criminal activity. If drugs were legal, most of the criminal activity would dissipate. The drug war is a bottomless pit of wasted money and resources.

streiff

the Alien and Sedition Act, too. As did Hamilton. As did a most Federalists. All part of the Founders.

I don’t disagree that the Constitution supports small government. I disagree that it mandates it or even encourages it. All that is needed to deprive you of life, liberty, or property is “due process of law.”

I don’t see how a case can be rationally made that there is a Constitutional basis for requiring small government, which I differentiate from a government of limited powers, but, however, there is a strong philosophical case to made which I’m very sympathetic towards.

RedBeard

…of supporting gvernment involvement in criminalizing adult murder while advocating no such action regarding the killing of unborn children. Refusing to acknowledge the unborn as sovereign individuals is the only explanation for that position. That is the only reason due process ever entered into this.

But as this sub-topic is going nowhere, as usually happens with abortion discussions, I’ll simply say I disagree with you and end this.

RedBeard

http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

That’s where the real ball game of politics is played. (I’m replying to Caorlyne’s “And it is possible” comment — sometimes the Reply To This button does not work for me.)

Debating the merits of the Electoral College on Redstate is interesting, but it’s not going to change anything regarding the outcome of the upcoming primary and general elections.

For example, here in Arizona, if John McCain is defeated IN THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY electiton he will be defeated because enough Republicans became precinct committeemen and then, in the weeks leading up to the primary election (early voting begins on July 29, the primary election takes place on August 24), they got the conservative Republican and conservative independent voters in their precincts to the polls after supplying them with some information, besides what they heard on the radio or saw on TV, why returning McCain to the Senate for a fourth term was such a terrible idea.

Then, after the general election, the Party leadership elections begin. First, the legislative districts meet and elect new leaders. If enough elected conservative precinct committeemen show up for those meetings, then conservatives will be elected to the leadership positions.

Who are these mysterious precinct committeemen? They are the registered Republicans who are taking the time now, before the May 26 filing deadline, to gather 10 or fewer signatures from Republican or independent voters in their precinct and then turn those in to the Board of Elections to get their names on the ballot for the party representative office of precinct committeeman for their precinct. (My precinct has 8 slots, one for every 125 registered Republicans, and all will probably be filled — but almost half of these slots in Arizona, and nationwide, are VACANT because of apathy.) Delegates to the state convention are elected.

Theoretically, any elected PC has a shot at becoming the RNC chairman. But as a “mere” registered Republican, without being a PC, that possibility is not available.

After the district elections comes the County Republican Party annual meeting at which county officers are elected. Then the State GOP meeting takes place. And then State RNC delegates (each state’s RNC delegates are the Party Chairman and two “at large” RNC delegates elected at the State annual meeting).

If you want to change the RNC, you’ve got to impact who your state GOP sends to the RNC meeting as delegates. ONLY precinct committeemen have a say in who becomes the RNC delegates.

And, by the way, in Arizona, we’ve got a conservative-RINO war waging INSIDE the Party. Two election cycles ago, our conservative Chairman defeated a RINO candidate, backed by McCain, by FOUR votes. Four.

If you want to REALLY change things, get INSIDE the Party. As the grass roots conservatives did in Utah. As Carolyne has explained they are doing it in Ohio. As we are doing it in Arizona. As the grass roots conservatives have done it in Clark County, Nevada.

If you want to learn more, go to my blog below or read my Diary entries here at Redstate.

Plus, it’s FUN being a PC.

For Liberty,
ColdWarrior, PC (that?s ?precinct committeeman,? not ?political child!?)
Conservatives, UNITE! CHANGE the Republican Party and save the world by UNITING INSIDE the Party as precinct committeemen. NOW!

satchmo

funny, but that attitude is not found in the libertarian posts here, but it is found in non-libertarian posts.

No libertarian argues that state laws should be ignored. Libertarian is not synonymous with liberal.

hazel5

NY – Vote for Jay Townsend… www.townsendfornewyork.com

Thank you for your support from the beautiful state of California!

Doc Holliday

and leaves the rest to the states. Of course this idea was destroyed by abuse of the interstate commerce clause. When I speak of “small government”, I am usually referring to the power of the Federal government. That is not true in all cases because even local government can abuse freedoms. But if we can just get some control of the federal leviathan, it would be a darn good start.

tngal

I smell money. Take some four by fours, about three feet long, shape them up like a bat, stamp them with “Debate Club”. Oh, do it, do it!

satchmo

that if a Libertarian/libertarian held office, that he wouldn’t govern?

I’m just trying to sort through your nonsense. Could you point to an example of a Libertarian candidate who sat on the sidelines and sniveled?

aesthete

sans streiff, I suppose, are around that general area, janis. As one of the RS ambassadors of the Non- Fratricidal and Non- Conspiratorial Libertarians (membership: 3 ), I think that the biggest problem that libertarians has lies with the neo-conservative (not using it as a pejorative) doctrine that informed such leaders as Bill Frist and George Bush, which essentially agrees with liberals on spending for social welfare, believes in government intervention for social ills, and in Wilsonian foreign policy — in short, the opposite of what libertarians believe in. While I acknowledge that there are some libertarians who vote third party just to be cantankerous or “different”, I sincerely believe that if someone who was serious about cutting government (like Fred Thompson) were nominated, most little “l” libertarians would rally ’round the flag.

satchmo

is not to be confused with advocacy for use.

Doc Holliday

require law. That is the difference between libertarians and anarchists. Actually libertarian philosophy is very pro law enforcement, it needs law enforcement to work. To a libertarian, one man has no right to infringe on the rights of another. Any criminal act would be a gross infringement and would have to be punished and enforced. The belief in maximum liberty does not mean the liberty to infringe on others. For example, a true libertarian would have the same respect for the rights of Amish as he would a stoner. And any person with morals would actually have a lot MORE respect for the Amish.

streiff

that I’m not sure bears up under scrutiny,

Washington and Hamilton, by their writings, did not necessarily favor small government. Washington and Madison both chartered national banks. Their vision of government was not as expansive as today, but the mechanisms didn’t exist in the 18th century to allow civil administration as we know it today.

I think the fairest statement is that the scope and responsibility of the federal government was as much a bone of contention among political parties in 1787 as it is today.

satchmo

if drugs were legalized, then it wouldn’t be illegal intake. Additionally, you ignore drug abuse of prescription meds. Lastly, moderation is not the same for everyone. Your plan is very anti-liberty and anti-freedom. “Forced on everyone” sounds like we’re subjects of the state.

streiff

doesn’t libertarianism have a very limited view of what is a “criminal act”? We already know they don’t think using or selling crack is bad.

I don’t see how NAMBLA would be disapproved of by libertarians, for instance, if the child consented. Or child marriage. Or female genital mutilation if the parents approved. How about animal cruelty laws? Assisted suicide?

Upthread, one of the libertinians was defending abortion as a choice (yah, yah, a choice THEY wouldn’t exercise).

Doc Holliday

and most conservatives believe in a majority of the libertarian views.

and if anyone cares, these are the Libertarian views I don’t agree with

1) open borders
2) legalize drugs (I do think personal pot use should be decriminalized)
3) anti-”imperialism” lol, sorry I am a Hawk
4) legalize gay marriage -
5) pro abortion

* on 4 and 5, leave it to the states and no other state’s licenses need be recognized.

also, for our nation to experiment with libertarian style government, we need to get rid of much of the welfare state.

gee, I guess I just described the views of a libertarian leaning Conservative Republican…which I am

Scope

he uses the Republican party in order to get elected. When he ran as a Libertarian in the 80′s, he couldn’t even strike enough spark to light a fire in a burning barrel.

As has been said above, the Ron Paul morons have been “trying” very hard to take over the Republican party, and change it into their perceived perfect image. One of their venues to try to gain the upper hand, has been with the tea parties. They have not succeeded. No one is buying their loonacy.

The Libertarian party has been around forever, and they have still gotten nowhere fast. You would think that after all these years they would learn to take no for answer. The only thing they have accomplished is to annoy the majority, with their constant preaching, mostly using moral relativism as their arguments. You have learned their method well sachamo.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

battle it out at the state level and then move to another state if they don’t like it, as Jefferson envisioned the maximization of happiness pursuits.

satchmo

but I never said Ryan was my enemy.

As for McCain, you brought him into it, not me, saying “That?s the same sort of illogic that caused some conservative folks to refuse to vote for McCain…”

You just stated that it was illogical to refuse to vote for McCain. I did not put words or deeds in your mouth.

aesthete

but you’ve made several contra-factual claims that should be addressed.

First, the moratorium on Ron Paul diaries only applied to members with accounts less than 6 months old. As I recall, SIConservative was supportive of Ron Paul even after this moratorium, as well as a few others.

Several socially conservative groups have expressed interest in regulating and banning gambling, culminating in the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. You may not agree with this, but to say that it has never been a social conservative concern.

You have implied several times that all libertarians believe the Libertarian Party manifesto. Hayek, Milton Friedman, Edward Crane (founder of Cato Institute), and many other libertarians are and were in active disagreement with the stated platform.

Could you please correct them, or otherwise indicate that you were definitively wrong on this? That would help show that you’re operating in good faith on these arguments, and that you hold your positions out of conviction and not stubbornness.

Doc Holliday

streiff

what was “Wilsonian” about Bush’s foreign policy.

Wilson was about multilateralism, treaties, etc. Wilson didn’t invade countries and kill their dictators.

But generally I agree with your critique other than your objections are those of a typical small government conservative, and a so-con to boot if you agree with Janis, not a libertarian.

satchmo

Republicans nominated John McCain, not libertarians. He lost the election. McCain obviously was not electable to the majority of Americans.

See how that works?

It’s funny how some rationalize and bend over backwards to excuse RINO and non-conservative behavior. Oh, Palin was just being loyal. Oh, Palin was just endorsing the candidate with the best chance. Oh, Ryan just made a “mistake”. Oops!

TxCon

are doing, along with the NRSC. They see Gingrich filming spots with Pelosi and Lindsay Graham sponsoring Cap and Trade junk.

Kagan will be another chance for the GOP to show some stones. Will they have the guts.

streiff

Republicans nominated George Bush twice and he won. See how that works. Hell, they nominated GHW Bush and he won.

It’s sort of amazing, but I’ve studied every American election held at every level since the founding of the Republic and you know what, only one guy wins. And everyone else loses.

Doc Holliday

I don’t speak for big L libertarians, I have nothing to do with them and have never read Rand. I come from this as a life long Republican CONSERVATIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! who doesn’t like what some bogus Republican statists have done to our party. I know what “libertarian” views mean to me and that is all that matters.

btw, you could never be a small government conservative or libertarian-conservative, you are like Scope. What is it you guys don’t get about the idea that there is a difference between something being “good” or “bad” and the idea that government should not get involved?

Libertarians don’t say using crack is good or bad, they say the government should not tell them what they can put in their own bodies. You guys keep looking at every issue as either “good” or “bad”. If you want to understand your opponents, and not just trash them, you should realize that they begin thinking thinking about issues as to whether government should be involved.

It seems you don’t think a conservative Christian can have libertarian views on government. If you believe this way, and I think you do, you are wrong.

nessa

streiff

1. you’re right.

2. I disagree. Gambling is a concern of some groups of social conservatives. But there are a lot of things that concern some groups. I will say supporting gambling will not get you run out of a so-con group. There are so-cons who object to alcohol and tobacco use, too.

3. Silly. You’re taking the position that because some libertarians, at least a quorum of which are dead, disagree with the platform used in the several presidential campaigns that using the platform to impeach the sanity of libertarians is wrong.

aesthete

Like you, I’ve never used drugs, and I don’t plan on starting any time soon. I have to say, though, that the War on Drugs is more than just a minor infringement on liberties, though it has been billed as such. The paramilitary tactics used against citizens guilty of misdemeanors makes it rank a little higher than “minor” for me. Here’s a map showing the incidents that have occurred since the escalation of the Drug War since ’85.

And here’s a video show-casing an all too typical scenario in the “War on Drugs”:

Ironically enough, I’m pretty sure that regulatory schemes would be more effective for reducing drug use than the current draconian policy. National Review coming out against the War on Drugs was the seminal turning point for me. The fact is, 50% of the population and our last 3 Presidents have all used drugs. It is ludicrous to think that sentences and enforcement are anything close to uniform or fair, given that metric. At any rate, it’s just bad policy to criminalize something that directly harms no-one, and which is wide-spread, but no matter — neither party is going to change on this issue anytime soon (though they should).

satchmo

nor have I used it as an argument. I’m against relativism. Maybe you’re confusing a belief that an individual should have choices over their own life as long as no one else’s life, liberty, and rights are infringed upon with a belief or advocacy for moral relativism. If so, then you are very much mistaken.

I don’t know why you think people who want limited government and personal freedom are “morons”.

aesthete

On points two and three, I find it odd that you are willing to acknowledge social conservatism as a multi-polar and ideologically flexible movement, but that you aren’t willing to do the same with libertarians. One of the problems with libertarianism has been its penchant for disunity because of those differences, but that’s another subject.

Scope

Couldn’t agree more. And every time another Paulite or libertarian comes here, there are hundreds of comments on those diaries. Mostly anti-Paul/Libertarian. I would say that many have libertarian leanings on some issues, but they cannot call themselves libertarians if they vote for Republicans. You are one or the other. The majority of beliefs for the both parties are worlds apart.

No one has to worry about trying to keep or attract the libertarians to vote for R’s, there aren’t any Republicans that can pass their purity test. And, many of them would rather sleep well at night knowing they didn’t dishonor their precious principles. I can’t even say that their staying home gave us Obama. There just aren’t that many kooks/weirdos/idiots calling themselves libertarians out there to have swayed the vote.

aesthete

The Libertarian Party is mostly operated by the heirs of Murray Rothbard — a pseudo-anarchist whose breaks with most libertarians are well-known within the movement (one reason that most libertarians don’t belong to the LP). If you want to impeach the sanity of Rothbard, go right ahead — I’ll be right behind you. Just understand that Rothbard (and by extension, the LP) is basically the leader of a set of libertarian outliers, and not representative of the mainstream.

satchmo

The inevitable cry of Nazi, either direct or implied.

I should have seen it coming.

streiff

I’m not a libertarian-conservative. I do think that morality is a critical component of our culture, as did the Founding Fathers, and unless we are going the way of Europe, and Ancient Rome, we need to focus at least some energy on that.

Bad does not exist in a vacuum. Buggering a young boy because he “consents” statistically guarantees that behavior is passed on by him. Crack doesn’t just effect you, it effects me when you steal my stuff to pay for your habit because your addiction prevents you from holding a job.

The government is us. We determine what kind of a society we want to live in. I don’t want to live in some kind of a dystopia that holds no-harm-no-foul unless someone gets killed.

satchmo

Every single one.

Well, all but one (assisted suicide).

satchmo

Five times you’ve referred to a particular homosexual act. Again, interpret it how you wish.

streiff

so-cons, as a glowing generality, are influenced by their religious tradition. Those, in the US, splintered in the wake of the disestablishment of the Anglican Church. I don’t think you’ll find very many Roman Catholic so-cons objecting to drink or gambling. Those are more closely associated with some parts of the Evangelical movement and low church or non-liturgical protestants.

When a person runs for office as a Republican he accepts what comes with the platform. If he’s pro-abortion he has to disavow the pro-life plank. If he just says I’m a Republican you have a right to assume what his political views are.

I’m simply asking the same of Libertarians or libertarians. If you don’t like the Libertarian platform what parts do you not like.

Achance

at least since my State’s Republican Convention last month, of why activist Republicans simply cannot stand most self-described libertarians. You’re wrong about our Country’s history, you’re wrong about formal libertarianism’s role in our Country, and you’re wrong about what most conservatives and Republicans, including the officeholders and activists that you like to trash, think about most political issues. But you do go on and on and on about how you’re right and we’re all stupid. The libertarians can’t elect a damn thing almost anywhere in America except liberal Democrats by pulling votes away from Republicans. Frankly, I do everything I can to both keep libertarians off the ballot and out of my Party.

Scope

“As for drug addiction treatment, many libertarians believe that the money used to fight the ?war on drugs? would be better spent on treatment, and I agree with that.”

You are here fighting as hard as you can for the federal government to be limited and made smaller (I agree with that) but then you trip yourself up by making the above statement. Really, many libertarians think that the fed monies from the War on Drugs should be used for treatment. How exactly does that lessen government or the spending?

Your idea that “let them get hooked on drugs, legally” and then “treat” those addictions is about as farcical as anything I’ve heard. You are not rational, and your libertarian moral relativity views couldn’t even find a home with that argument.

satchmo

“I don’t want to control lives in and out of the bedroom”

with

“they should keep their mouths shut about it outside the bedroom”

I’m going to regret this potential tangent, but just as a point of information, homosexual behavior occurs in many animal kingdom species. I think it would be incorrect to say it is not natural. Socially taboo or unaccepted, sure, but unnatural…no.

aesthete

as it was, was informed by Wilson’s foreign policy, and that Bush was influenced by neo-conservative intellectuals — a separation of two degrees. I’d say that the big Wilsonian idea embraced by Bush’s foreign policy team was the idea that democracy is often effective and desirable above other foreign policy concerns (see: Pakistan, Afghanistan, and to some extent Iraq), and that countries should always embrace democracy for distinct groups (see the increased autonomy promoted by the Bush admin in the Palestinian Territories). It’s questionable how much those decisions were influenced by ideology, and how much by political concerns, but support for democracy in unworkable situations seemed to be a recurring theme in the Bush administration’s foreign policy.

But if I had to classify it, I’d have to say that Bush’s foreign policy was more reminiscent of Truman and Roosevelt’s.

Doc Holliday

yes I said lying. Let me make my previous point more clearly. Your type just assumes government is good at accomplishing goals, my type disagrees. The people on my side are guys like Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and most other conservative opinion leaders.

See libertarian-conservatives believe that government generally does a poor job of accomplishing positive goals. The exceptions to this rule include the military, NASA, the CIA etc. These are exceptions and things private enterprise can’t and should not do.

But back to my main point. You seem to just assume government is their to prevent all “bad things” and promote all “good things”. It is like you don’t even consider the fact that government is not the answer to every ill in this world. You know, there are people who believe government is the answer, they are called Democrats, Socialists, and Progressives. Maybe you have more in common with them than you do with me? I think you do.

You keep using these extreme and odd examples of crimes and say libertarians think they are good. You have it all wrong,

People can argue and decide what should be criminal and then the law enforces that. But we can not end every negative thing in the world. We can’t stop all smoking, we can’t stop all drinking, we can stop Playboy from being published. Well actually we could do a lot of that if we wanted to live in a police state. Is that what you want?

See maybe we just think different about everything, maybe we think differently about God, morals, and freedom. See my religion teaches me that morality comes from belief in God. I was raised to believe that morality was doing the right thing when you had the option to do wrong. I have come to believe that putting a gun in someones face and telling them not to smoke does nothing to increase morality. If people do x and y because they don’t want be thrown in jail, they are not making moral decisions.

In the end I have made my libertarian-conservative views clear for all to know. I certainly don’t think I will influence you in any way. I was nice and even placating at first, but you have an agenda. I have been more strident as your examples have become more disturbing. We get it, you dont’ like libertarians, LIBERTARIANS, or lIBERTARIANS lol. I think we are done here but I reserve the right to defend others in the thread if needed.

Scope

He suffers from “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.”

You could just as easily have said that Republicans and Democrats believe in elections, and, libertarians believe in erections, and you would get the same responses from him.

Scope

referring to was in reply to sachamo.

aesthete

Most (in fact, I’ll go out on a limb and say 99.999% of) libertarians would point out that it’s a child, that a child has characteristics that make his circumstance different, and that therefore, restrictions for children are not only reasonable, but moral. That is not the argument that they’re making. Rather, the argument is that when they get to the age where they are seen as adults, they have the freedom and responsibility to do with their lives as they see fit. They then have the privilege (or ignomy) to reap what they sow without having the men with guns get involved unless they do direct harm to others. I’m a soft libertarian: I can see situations where externalities and other circumstances could involve a little more than that. But generally, that’s what libertarians believe, and their specific positions are extensions of that thought. I’m pretty sure that you disagree with them on that, and that’s your right, but isn’t it better to represent their position with the most fidelity possible, instead of going with a cardboard cutout constructed by people too intellectually bankrupt to argue the position on its merits?

janis

but that demographic is not insisting that my young grandchildren know about it, approve of it, and, by all means, why don’t my grandchildren give it a try and see how they like it. Nor, as far as I know, have there been any Dolphin Gay Pride Parades through the streets of Miami.

And when I say “natural”, I mean that biology intended to have a male of the species and a female of the species to procreate. Not two of one or two of the other. Don’t even bother to tell me about frogs or anything else that can change sexes and fertilize itself. When they have a voting bloc that can do some damage, then I’ll worry about their issues.

You’re pretty much of a nuisance at this point, you know. We’ve exhausted your store of incomplete and incorrect information. As for your opinions, well, you know what they say about those. And they’re right.

Doc Holliday

but they don’t have much future lol. See evolution.

Scope

for drug use, then why the hell are you in favor of fighting hard for it’s passage? Is it because it’s your damn body, and you will do with it as you please, even if those around you are the ones to suffer the most for your stupidity?

You know dang well that when I said “forced on everyone” was “snark.” Then again, I am giving you more credit there than is your due.

Addiction to prescription meds is a false argument. When prescription meds are used properly, they help medical conditions far more than the problems of addiction. There are no arguments for illegal drugs, say heroine or cocaine, in that they help any medical conditions, they in fact cause medical conditions.

Lastly, moderation is exactly the same for everyone. You are confusing that with what a 200 lb male, as opposed to a 100 lb female can tolerate. That goes for mostly everything.

http://www.wolvesofliberty.com GJ Merits

You are correct and wrong at the same time. The constitution, as ratified after the Philadelphia convention, was not put to a national referendum. It was sent back to the states so each state would ratify via convention within that state the constitution itself. This is, de facto, an admission that states held the power and were sovereign and the Uniting of the States would be under a limited federal government.

At the convention, nationalists such as Madison helped author The Federalist, it is very convenient to study his writings. For those not interested in looking at the context of Madison?s writings, there is a tendency to equate Madison?s ideas with those of the Founding Fathers.

However, a look at the real history of the Philadelphia Convention quickly indicates that Madison was not representative of the majority opinion at all. He wanted to create a national as opposed to a federal, government that would have reduced states roles per the Articles of Confederation and relegated them to a secondary status and strengthen the central government.

His Virginia Plan was to give Congress general legislative authority and empower the national judiciary to hear cases brought between the states, to also provide the Congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and finally to eliminate the states? accustomed role in selecting members of Congress.

Those who wanted to retain the states? primary role in the federal system ? defeated every one of these proposals.

Kevin Gutzman describes the situation as follows:

[In fact, the idea of "national" government was thoroughly thumped in Philadelphia. So unpopular was it that when Pennsylvania?s James Wilson, a Philadelphia Convention nationalist, made his famous speech at the Philadelphia State House on October 6, 1787, he began by contrasting the state constitutions to the proposed federal Constitution. As he put it:

"When the people established the powers of legislation under their separate [that is, their state] governments, they invested their representatives with every right and authority which they did not in explicit terms reserve; and therefore upon every question respecting the jurisdiction of the House of Assembly, if the frame of government is silent, the jurisdiction is efficient and complete. But in delegating federal powers, another criterion was necessarily introduced, and the congressional power is to be collected, not from tacit implication, but from the positive grant expressed in the instrument of the union. Hence, it is evident, that in the former case everything which is not reserved is given; but in the latter the reverse of the proposition prevails, and everything which is not given is reserved.

Another way of putting this is that the nationalist Virginia Plan had been defeated in Philadelphia in favor of a federal plan. Congress had only the powers included in “the positive grant.” Had he any concern with learning the truth of the matter, Franck might find assurances that the proposed government was to be federal, not national, in the records of its friends? arguments in South Carolina, Virginia, Massachusetts, and New York, as well.]

While the Bill of Rights was used to secure ratification, it was a way of limiting federal powers further. Without it, many feared the other text did not provide sufficient checks against federal power. So you MAY be correct BUT we would not know it unless the Bill of Rights was never included. Of course, even with its inclusion, thanks to centuries of abuse by federal courts, some Presidents, and the legislative branch, even with the Bill or Rights we are nowhere near where our founders intended us to be – if one can honestly say they believed any of this would last. The preamble to the Bill of Rights states:

“The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution?.”

Scope

I never brought up McCain. And, I am one of the belief that it wasn’t only Republicans that made McCain the candidate. There were many Republicans, in strong Republican districts, that voted for H Clinton, just to try to keep the all but self described Communist out of the WH.

See how that works?

I can’t stand McCain, vehemently. I want his sorry ass out of Washington, yesterday. But, I did pay attention to Obama, what he was saying, the scant but telling info out there about him and his beliefs and associations, and, knew that he had to be denied the keys to our country. There is wisdom in knowing when to hold tightly to your principles, and then knowing when you have to make a hard choice in order to be able to not give away those principles for good.

http://www.wolvesofliberty.com GJ Merits

I am a small l with a big C – Conservative and libertarian and I also agree with your assessment on the five points you list. I think most would agree our founders were right-wingers, with some of them maybe qualifying for radical right-wingers, but certainly NOT Libertarians.

Scope

we hate what some of the so-called R leaders are doing to the party. There have been many diaries, some front page, about the gutless wonder McConnell. There have been front pagers about sending your donations directly to the candidate of your choice. There have been front pagers about the jackasses at the NRSC and the RNC.

No one has the ability to remove McConnell right now. He still has time until his term is up. I don’t know when Cornyn’s term is up either. You can’t just throw the bums out now because they are a disgrace, and that they are. Will they grow a pair anytime soon, NO. It isn’t in their DNA.

The unity part of all this is that we fight to remove the jerks as they come up for re-election. What should we do if the freakin idiots in AZ vote for McCain again in the primary, support the Dem? or put the McCain voters in front of a firing squad or take their voter registration cards away from them?

We are really trying as hard as we can to get the party back in the right hands, but, it won’t happen overnight. The best we can hope for is to remove as many of the gutless wonders as possible, as soon as possible, and those left behind will be put in the corner with dunce hats on.

Doc Holliday

I have a bad feeling though, so many have been running scared for so long. We need to give zero to NRSC, RNC, etc, only give to true conservative candidates. They need to realize they represent us at OUR pleasure and if they don’t get that, we will replace them.

hickorystick

We had this conversation about 225 years ago. A Confederation is too weak to maintain itself as a country. You have to give some power to the government of the Union. I’m as much a free-thinker as anyone else; I grew up in Seattle, Jimi Hendrix and all that. It’s always a careful balance between sacrificing for the strength of the state, and maintaining liberty and independance. There is no perfect solution. Right now I’m on my Damn the Banks mode, because they have become the greatest threat to liberty. I wouldn’t want to completely get rid of them either, because then we couldn’t buy better machinery or have growth.
The point being, is we both like engaging in thought, but at some point we need to amass power, be it financial or political. And yes, some of our compatriots aren’t going to smell that nice. Life’s not fair.

cabanon

There are only a handful of solid Conservatives out there. I can see the Tea Party working from within the GOP to try and transform it but at some point scrapping the whole thing and starting over might not be a bad idea.

Scope

satchmo trying to defend? For example, he is fighting for a smaller role for the federal government, and with that I think he would have 100% agreement from all here. But, when he says things like- The libertarians would like to see the money being spent on the War on Drugs, used for treatment for those addicted to those drugs, how exactly does that decrease the role or spending of the federal government?

The problem with his particular type of libertarianism is they love to debate/talk on and on/argue their beliefs and positions. They never give an inch on anything, and when their views are shunned or ignored, they take their ball and go home, or don’t vote. It is against their principles to ever compromise on anything, and they don’t even realize that in their stubborness, they are giving up the freedoms and liberties they hold so near and dear, because they actually help those get elected that are now dismantling the freedom that this country has always held above everything else.

http://www.laborunionreport.combrand/brhttp://www.laborunionreport.blogspot.com LaborUnionReport

his points were poorly articulated and thought processs only slightly lucid.

That was at the third (I think) debate at the Reagan Library (?)…

RedBeard

You stated: “Perhaps if people like you and the RNC DIDN?T put up candidates like McCain…” That is untrue, a faulty conclusion.

I then explained clearly my position with regard to McCain, and yet you ignore it while continuing to misrepresent my position.

Enough of this.

RedBeard

But judging by some of Satchmo’s replies, that was a rather fruitless exercise.

A more useful enterprise might be exploring my refrigerator for a stray bottle of Yuengling Black and Tan. Yes, I’m sure it is. Might even be two bottles in there somewhere.

Scope

not surprising given your past comments. There just doesn’t seem to be anything about the Republican party that you can tolerate. I still contend that you are not a Republican, and are posting here in bad faith.

Scope

the best of the PA Yuengling brewery.

Scope

n/t

http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

Point 1) I think that in most cases you should support the Republican who comes out of the primary. But not EVERY case. There some people with an R by their name who are so odious you would be better off to see them defeated and rendered incapable of harming the movement again. I would say that Specter in his last two terms would have met that criteria.

Point 2) Despite people like Streiff and their bent ideas about libertarianism. The nation is moving in that direction. It must of necessity do so since the thing that is killing us right now is a government which is too big, too expensive, and too intrusive.

Not all versions of conservatism offer an antidote to that. But the libertarian, fiscal conservative branches do. However, there is something else at work. As we make more converts from younger generations we will see a more libertarian attitude toward some issues. It does us great harm to try and push such people away.

point 3) Getting involved in the party is the key. IT is funny that so many of us were in despair after the horrible McCain candidacy, but now we felt energized to go out to our precincts and get involved. I wish I could do more than I am doing, but at least I am now going to meetings and donating. I had not done those things for years.

Scope

individual choices over their own life as long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others. Where do your rights start and someone else’s stop. That is one area that libertarians have never been able to argue to any reasonable conclusion.

I never said that those that want limited government and personal freedoms are morons. What I said are those that argue such points as the one in my first paragraph are morons.

Again, I ask you where exactly do your rights begin, and anothers end. Or, where do anothers right’s end and yours begin? Can you answer that?

Along the way, to the best governance, you have to be willing to give up some of your strong hold on your principles, in order to gain that which is most acceptable to the majority of the American citizens. Absent that, you are looking for a utopia that will never exist, even in the freest country in the land.

Doc Holliday

are on the wrong side of history. I realize their view held sway during the Bush years, but it is they who might need to look for a 3rd party if they are not going to find common ground with us.

RedBeard

It’s a risk I’m happy to take.

Btw, one of the “as one door closes another one opens” deals happened here in Tampa. Anheuser Busch went foreign, but Yuengling (real Americans) opened a brewery just up the street. Karma.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

positions are the same as yours, almost 100%.

Leopard1996

The answer to where my rights end and another person starts is about 2.5 inches from the tip of their nose. Which is to say, that as long as my behaviors are not negatively affecting another person than no one has the right to legislate my behavior.

I am going to give a quick example here to explain where most people with libertarian leanings are coming from.

Now we are assuming here that marijuana is a legal product that has been through proper import processes, therefore, no gangs or cartels were involved. I go out and buy a 1/2 ounce of marijuana, I buy my cheetos, doritos, hohos, and Ben and Jerry’s chunky monkey ice cream,. Afterwards, I go home, and proceed to spark up a joint using that 1/2 ounce of marijuana, and never leave my house because I already bought my munchies. Who’s rights am I truly violating from that behavior.

Bill S

Keep it up.

aesthete

and I never will. Like I said, the people involved in the LP are about as worthy of everyone’s attention (and as relevant to libertarianism) as the Constitution party is for conservatives.

There’s a good case to be made against the open society, but I would say that such arguments probably would (and have, going by Net Neutrality and broadcasting Fairness Act they seem to love so much) find more purchase on the left and among those who favor an expansive or activist government.

aesthete

If so, do you want drunks killing The Children?!?!?!?! That’s the rationale used by many who are against the War on Drugs. I’m against it because I’m tired of the federal government treating citizens like enemy combatants for doing something that hurts no one but themselves.

Here’s the video I was promising below:

One of the dogs in the house was gunned down; the other got hit by a ricocheting bullet. There was a 7-year old kid living there who could have easily been the recipient of one of those ricocheting bullets. This guy’s only crime was having some marijuana: he wasn’t violent, and there was no expectation of violence on his part. This raid was completely by the book. Do you see how some of us might see that as excessive?

JSobieski

and drop the third party talk

Bill S

I, for one, am sorry I missed the afternoon’s festivities and couldn’t get involved in smacking down satchmo. I am in lock-step with streiff on this one.

Leopard1996

That if things were up to just the “social-conservatives” there would be laws in place that would regulate what happens inside people’s homes. The sodomy laws for example that were deemed unconstitutional for example come to mind. People were being sent to jail or fined because they engaged in their way of expressing their love (I may not like it, but I don’t think I have the right to call the cops on my neighbor because I may not like their sexual orientation). Also the enforcement itself could be suspect as well.

A quick hypothetical I could personally see from my own personal experience. I am not gay and neither is my best friend, but we were two single men who decided to room together in a two bedroom, two bathroom apartment, that did allow section 8 housing. Now a neighbor has a friend that has two kids, and finds out that their are no more apartments available in the complex, but eyes mine and my roommate’s place as a good candidate for their friend, what would have stopped them from calling the police to have them investigate a “sodomy”offense. Then when the officer comes over, and decides that they want to ask “permission” to search the house for proof that sodomy has not occurred and maybe finds a box of condoms (remember we are single men and may engage in straight safe sex), What happens then. The officer is either going to arrest or write the citation, depending on what the law is, me and my roommate now have to either pay the fine or pay attorneys to fight the charges, and if we did win, what stops the neighbor from repeating the cycle until we just say screw it and leave.

cabanon

I said scrapping the whole thing and starting over. That’s not an endorsement of bringing in a thrid party in anyway. Why would you oppose ditching all the RHINOS and starting fresh with solid Conservatives?

http://guyaverage.blogspot.com guyaverage

…and a GOP that stands for no clear principles will NOT pull it out of that spiral.

Pragmatism at the time of The Founders was epitomized in The Tories. Courage showed its steely face in those who took their stand for Liberty at any cost without compromise.

The Democrats stand firm in their Marxist principles, which are anathema to Liberty and Self-Government. The Republicans have no firm principles on which to stand, and reside atop the shifting sands of pragmatism.

Without the courage to commit to Principle, The American Experiment will come to a close soon.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

bears no relevance to my comment that I can see.

JSobieski

than it would be to win a 3 way race as an independent.

SO . . there there is no excuse for failing to run in the primary, and if they lose the primary, they should NOT run in the general.

The ONLY exception to that rule is if there is no opportunity to run in the primary, i.e. NY-23

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

aesthete

follow this thread!

BTW, great posts here; libertarians and social conservatives share an agenda now more than ever, especially post-Bush. So long as the federalist kick sticks, I’m happy to work alongside social conservatives.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

the crime will continue unabated?

JSobieski

We have faced more severe dangers than the dangers we face today. That is not to underestimate the problems, but I personally remember 1979.

Many of our senior citizens remember the Great Depression and WWII.

Civil War? War of 1812? Washington crossing the Delaware?

This country has been in immediate danger of ceasing to exist before. We are not at that stage now.

I was just commenting on another board with someone about why the Polish zloty is falling with respect to the US dollar even though Poland grew in 2009, has a better fiscal status than the US, and is not part of the Eurozone.

We have built up a strong economic, intellectual, and cultural infrastructure in this country, and it is robust as any social grouping in the history of the earth.

takemccain2

You have my respect, Eric and on your point about 3rd parties not being viable I’m with you. However, I steadfastly disagree with your overall contention that this is about getting Republicans elected instead of Conservatives.

For more than 12 years the party base was asked time and again to “hold our noses” and vote the party line because we had to “maintain control” of the House and Senate. The reason most often cited was that we had to keep Liberals from getting back in power because then things would really be bad, even though we had members of the GOP who weren’t reliable votes when it came to issues of core importance.

I will repeat – issues of core importance.

Low taxes, a strong and robust military, an end to government control of education, strict constructionist judges, protection of the unborn, protection of religious freedom and upholding the laws of our nation despite cries of victim-hood by radicals.

These are core, non-negotiable issues on which I cut no leader slack, regardless of if he/she has an (R) after their name. Nor should you.

If getting back control is so important – and it is to me – why shouldn’t we insist on having players that want our team to win? I’m not talking elections here, I’m talking about the agenda. I want to see some ideologues on our side for a change that are unwilling to sell us out on key issues like the last majority we had.

Let me illustrate by using an analogy.

Say you build a dam to hold back the flood waters of a destructive river in order to save a peaceful town. If you build that dam out of sub-par material and it is springing leaks all the time, threatening to collapse, then what good is it? You might as well let the waters just cascade down and crush that peaceful town. Why not construct the dam of solid, unbreakable material that you know will stand the test of time?

Get my point?

The last times we did this – 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004 – we voted (R) and kept majorities that did NOTHING to advance the Conservative agenda and that allowed the other party to chi;p away by giving them a little here, a little there, just to keep them somewhat quiet.

How well did that work?

We’ve been down this road before. Do I have to remind anyone here about the scuttled Balanced Budget Amendment from the Contract With America that Bob Dole allowed to die? What about Campaign Finance Reform? What about ‘Gang of 14′? What about Steroids in Baseball (still can’t believed we wasted taxpayers dollars on those hearings), what about having lack-luster leaders like Dole, Graham, McCain and others who are more interested in earning media laurels than in enacting the agenda and reversing 20+ damaging years of unchallenged liberalism?

I’m not going to support moderates ever again. That is what got us to 2006, 2008 and where we are now. So I’m supposed to go back and support more RINOs just for the sake of numbers? What kind of strength will that be if 15% of your party can’t be trusted on the big issues?

We have to expect more, not less, of those we elect to defend our fight for our side. And on that note, can we please get some fighters in the GOP? I’m tired of pantie-waists who hold out for 3 days (hello Senator Shelby) and then fold like a deck of cards because they lack the testicular fortitude to stand by principles.

In summary, it is time for us to except no less than loyalty and a determination to fight to keep our country free, prosperous and good. To say we might have to do with less is not acceptable. I will never, ever in my life cast a vote for a Liberal in Conservative Sheep Skins again.

Never.

You have your convictions and I have mine. Electing half-committed Republicans who will take us back to the way things were before 2006 won’t cut it. We need real changes and a rollback of government. We need a clean house.

Again, I respect you but here we must disagree. I will still vote (R) on election day UNLESS the person with the (R) by their name is a RINO. If that is the case then they can go fish.

Can I get a ditto out there now?

Doc Holliday

but you can not ignore the tea parties and others who are rebelling against the big government leviathan. I am not defensive because I know my side of conservatism is winning and I am playing down how huge the win in for humility purposes.

In the past I remember agreeing with Strieff on many counts. In this thread, I can only respond to what is written. The reality is that the conservative movement has refound (again) its small government, maximum freedom roots. I have no problem with those who are angry and flailing about, hell I don’t blame them. The time for Goldwater/Reagan conservatism is here, those that don’t like it have a choice to make.

If you choose big government, if you think government can fiix societies ills, you can either take it like a man and support your team or you can move to another team. Republicans are gaining because of Obama’s nanny state. You don’t have to be as strident as we are, but make no mistake, our view is leading the way. There is a reason any thread that mentions libertarian conservatives get’s the most traffic, that is where the action is now.

I was never big on using the majority opinion to support mine, in fact I was in the minority for a long time, but that time has passed. You have every right to support statist socon ideas, but you and your type no longer are the players in the party.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

since I agree with you, we must be right….streiff-like smile!

http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

the Republican Party as precinct committeemen.

guyaverage, I suggested back in December in response to one of your posts that you become a PC in Ohio. Have you? I hope so.

For Liberty,
ColdWarrior, PC (that?s ?precinct committeeman,? not ?political child!?)
Conservatives, UNITE! CHANGE the Republican Party and save the world by UNITING INSIDE the Party as precinct committeemen. NOW!

Doc Holliday

in fact at the beginning I said he was her to get us fighting, I guess I was prophetic even though i was also involved. Satch made some good points, but he has not been consistent as I have been, for over four years here. At first he was talking about greens, saying Repubs and Dems were the same etc, i said I disagreed with that.

I am a conservative, I am what I believe to be one of the true conservatives here. I am not moderate, I am a radical. And Obama has radicalized many people, I did not need his help, I have history, truth, and honor on my side.

aesthete

I completely agree. But then, there isn’t much use arguing with Doc Holliday, now is there?

Doc Holliday

not legalized. Forget this NORML “legalize and tax” crap. Marijuana is an herb, it is a freaking plant. People should have a right to grow it in their own yard and use it if they wish. I don’t want the Feds to get their grubby hands on anything else.

Everyone has their own right to decide what is right and what is wrong. but if you ever knew a true alcoholic, you would never think pot is worse for their body.

As all things in my world, it comes down to freedom and personal responsibility., The absurdity that we spend billions to lock up people for smoking a plant is beyond the pale. I am with the libertarian right on this one, as was Milton Friedman, a Reagan hero.

Doc Holliday

either lightning struck twice or we are right

Doc Holliday

I try to be nice, but that pretty sums up how I really want to be. I am looking for help lol.

Bill S

It doesn’t get any clearer than that.

Bill S

those who pimp for 3rd parties have a very brief life span here on RS. Just fair warning to you.

Doc Holliday

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibSwITK4jjQ

and this, they don’t even say they are cops

the problem is not just the Feds, local authorities can be some of the worst abusers of freedom. We need this lady to run for office, many men would have just taken this.

Doc Holliday

if we only argued for our own personal interests, people would think I am a pot smoking, boozing, tobacco smoking, Big Mac eating, non motorcycle helmet wearing machine gun shooting, glue sniffer. Ok, I am a lot of those things, but still I support ALL reasonable personal freedoms because it is the freedom that counts, the the specific act.

Cue Streiff and his NAMBLA fetish

http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

You promote a candidate running against a Republican and I won’t even hesitate.

Oh and if you try a “But what about (candidate)” here I might just ban you as a pre-emptive time saver, so don’t even bother.

Michael Dugas

It’s Professional Politicians who create environments through bad legislation that create, allow and even promote bad fiscal behavior.
The entire mortgage bubble was created by and allowed to fester by the federal government. Most financial problems that effect the country as a whole are the result of bad/criminal actions of politicians and government.

Michael Dugas

n/t

mbecker908

That way when BO gets elected to his second term he’ll have 85 Dem Senators and 380 Dem House members.

It’s already attracted one third party promoter – now blammed – and now we see you shedding your cloak. Based on the rest of the mostly crap you’ve written I can’t say I’m surprised.

Hey Neil, is the “I Was Banned From Redstate” website still up?

Doc Holliday

the law has little meaning because those who are supposed to enforce law are on the take. legalizing drugs in Mexico (this is not clear yet) has nothing to do with crime on the border. the border crime is about our drug laws, not theirs. The narco-traffickers fight over the right to send drugs to this country, not Mexico.

If marijuana was legalized, the narco-criminals would sell a prodcut that is less dear. They could be priced out and forced to move to another line of work. In the end, people in this country should be able to make their own choices over pot. They should be able to grow their own if they so wish and they should pay a heavy price if their drug use hurts another.

Mexico is a crime ridden nation because so many are on the take. It has nothing to do with their local drug laws.

http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

I was at a Arizona Republican Lawyers Assn. function last Friday and I asked Rep. Shadegg why there wasn’t more passionate fighting for our rights by the Republicans, especially in the Senate (which I added was unfair to him because he wasn’t in the Senate but since he was a retiring House member maybe he would feel free to give a no-holds-barred answer). I had a few more topics in the question (Do the Republicans have a strategy to defeat the Dems’ coming legislative salvos? Do the Republicans have a strategy to overcome the media bias?)

His answer was illuminating and I’ll just focus here on the “passion” part of it.

He used a term I’d not heard before to describe many of his colleagues in the House. They are “Republicans By Convenience.” They happened to be Republicans only because they had decided, when they began their political careers, to run as a Republican because, conveniently, wherever they happened to be, a Republican had a better chance of winning than a Democrat. He said there were very, very few Republicans in the House (he put the number at 17) who really, really believed in upholding their oath of office and really, really believed in adhering to the constraints of the Constitution. He said many of the others paid lip service to the concept of, for example, limited government but that, if taking a stand would in any way hurt their re-election chances, they’d jettison their “principles” with no qualms.

Bottom line: it’s “we the people’s” fault. Not enough of us, for two long, have been involved in party politics at the grass roots to make sure that the candidates are vetted better before the all-important primary elections. (I’m guilty as charged — but that inaction where it matters ended for me in 2007.)

I keep hearing this reference to the conservative “base” of the Party. With HALF the precinct committeeman slots nationwide vacant, this “base” is ethereal, in my opinion. Or, at least, a shell of what it could be. If we could get all of the conservatives around the country who demand the Party be more principled to actually DO SOMETHING about it that REALLY matters, like UNITING INSIDE the Party as a precinct committeemen, we could have the Party we desire. The 50-50 split in the Party right now between conservatives and RINOs in the precinct committeeman ranks would go to 75-25 in favor of conservatives if we filled up all the empty PC slots.

So, if we want a more conservative Party, we’ve got to UNITE. Where it matters. Not just on blogs, but INSIDE THE PARTY at our local GOP committee meetings as voting members of the Party. As the grass roots conservatives did in Utah to oust Sen. Bob Bennett.

For Liberty,
ColdWarrior, PC (that?s ?precinct committeeman,? not ?political child!?)
Conservatives, UNITE! CHANGE the Republican Party and save the world by UNITING INSIDE the Party as precinct committeemen. NOW!

JSobieski

if you chosen candidate can’t win a majority in a Republican primary, then they certainly can’t win a majority in the general election.

Politics is directional, we need the most rightward officials possible. Getting the most conservative elected officials possible is the goal. Sitting out is what gave us Obama in the first place.

http://www.laborunionreport.combrand/brhttp://www.laborunionreport.blogspot.com LaborUnionReport

“All that is needed to deprive you of life, liberty, or property is ?due process of law.?

hickorystick

But they are tools of the banks. What were seeing in the economy right now is bigger banks eating smaller banks. There is a lot of profit in that. I saw the same thing in the Carter years. When there is uncertainty in the market, a lot of defaults occur, and also a lot of bank reserves go below minimum requirements, which creates a feeding frenzy.
Right now a project I had been working on was taken back by a bank for reason of default. They could have finished the project, and sold it. Instead they drove it into default so they could exercise a trustee sale. They clear $130,000 of work, on a $2.5 million project. The bank released the developer from his mortgage contract, in return for the deed. The developer walks away. The sub-contractors get burned. Each one of those subs have families.
Why I can’t stand the banks, is I searched the RCW’s for some kind of relief. The RCW’s protect the Banks in every conceivable way. If I wan’t to contest the non-judicial foreclosure (trustees sale) I have to put up a 2.5 million dollar bond. Now how do I do that for a comparitively small amount of money?
Sorry to tell you my story. But their is a flip side to banks. Conservatives should be concerned with this, because many of these subs families are going to become a burden in social costs. There is no real growth right now, and no one is building.
I don’t mean to disrespect you. There is more to banking than a speadsheet though, and I wanted you to know the other side.

greghalvorson

FYI, Eric, the “banner of Lincoln” is one of overriding the Constitution, subsidizing business, and trade protectionism. Lincoln centralized power and destroyed States’ rights—and killed 600,000 Americans while doing it.

takemccain2

Such a mature response. Just for your record, I’m not a 3rd party promoter. I don’t agree that a Ross Perot type candidacy gets you anything but defeated as history has shown. My point it that I’m not voting in people who give Conservatism lip service and then do just the opposite when it comes to governance.
But please, by all means you go on being the fool and voting for people who sell you out. I’ll be over here in my corner of the politico-verse saying ” I told you so ” when that happens.

I’ve put my $ where my mouth is, donating thus far in the last month to Marco Rubio, J.D. Hayworth, Marlin Stutzman and Rand Paul. What have you done, hotshot?

Also, I love posters who talk about ‘banning’ people just because I don’t hold true 100% of your belief system. Oooooo – I’m so scared. You’re going to ban me?!?!? Pu-LEEEZEE, anything, OH GOD, anything but being banned!!!

Seriously dude, go get a hobby or finally kiss a girl and quit living in your step-mom’s basement at age 38 making post threats to people.

mbecker908

who don’t meet what ever your idea of purity is. Certainly the frontpagers and mods didn’t have any trouble picking that out, and now you’re just flat lying about it. And as far as me banning you, I can’t and I wouldn’t if I could. Having people like you around with single digit IQ’s, no reasoning ability and no ability to make a cogent argument is entertaining on slow weekends.

Your little drumbeat is the sure way to the permanent minority, you’re just not bright enough to recognize it.

I’ve donated to and worked for winners. Scott Brown, Toomey and Rubio to name a few. I’ll be supporting a variety of House candidates in Arizona so we can pick up three House seats in November. As far as Hayworth, I hope you’re sending him your food money

Bill S

I should print out your sentence and frame it. But just so everyone sees it again:

if you chosen candidate can?t win a majority in a Republican primary, then they certainly can?t win a majority in the general election.

Amen, bro.

takemccain2

Your assumption is wrong and wrong-headed. Your personal animosity towards me – a person you don’t even know – is even more telling.

Here is all you need to know about me. I want Conservatives to win, I want the GOP to fight, I want to have leaders who are men/women of their word, I want a FULL REPEAL of Obamacare, I want judicial activism ended, I want to see Republicans quite being bi-partisan and try being a little more partisan for the people who elect them, I’m going to work for a GOP majority but at the end of the day, I want a majority that works FOR US.

A 3rd party candidacy is suicide and the reason we got Obama in 2008 isn’t because people sat home it is because the GOP left it’s base, left it’s roots and abandoned those voters. The reason we got Obama in 2008 is because we got John McCain.

You keep beating your drum though against anyone who disagrees with your point of view and I’ll just keep working towards getting Conservatives elected. I do believe that is what you want as well but you should be somewhat respectful to people who don’t share the totality of your viewpoint.

earlgrey

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I think we have been doing a pretty good job about making it clear what we want from the republican party. Of course we can’t be lazy and just whine around on blogs, while we let the local republican party do as they choose. We have to get involved. If we all spent as much time working within the party as we do on blogs, than we could make some real change.

takemccain2

I understand your argument but again will stress that just getting a majority does us little good if a percentage of our members – Graham, McCain, Vionovich – turns on us when it comes to an issue we hold sacrosanct.
All we are advocating is making sure we have the best candidate in any race to send to Washington. We want the same things the only difference is that some of us aren’t going to hold our noses anymore when we know the person on the ballot is Democrat-lite instead of Conservative Republican.
Seriously, do you want another majority like we had before 2006 that couldn’t even get it together on judges or terror interrogations or amnesty???
I sure as heck don’t. We don’t need more Grahams, McCains and Bennets. We need more DeMints, Sessions and Thunes. We need people of character not characters.

God Bless.

JSobieski

Nobody really caught fire, so McCain won. Based on the campaign performances of the other candidates, there is no reason to suspect that any of them had the chops to beat Obama.

Convince your chosen candidate to try and win the primary. Then be an adult and vote for the better candidate, even if better is only marginal.

Why are you afraid of Republican primary voters, and why do you think its easier to be conservative in a general election than a Republican primary?

JSobieski

not independents who are afraid of Republican primary voters.

The time for RINO hunting is the primary. I don’t understand why you are so confident in the general election but so afraid of Republican primaries.

JSobieski

I would modify it even further:

If your chosen candidate can’t win a Republican primary, then they certainly can’t win a majority in the general election.

In a primary, you can win with significantly less than 50% in a crowded field. In a general election, you need to get to at least 50% in most instances (unless there is a strong independent candidate or third party candidate).

JSobieski

but my guy, Fred, wasn’t able to convince South Carolina REPUBLICANS to prefer him over McCain. McCain is who he is—you should be mad a the 2008 primary voter and ask “what where they thinking?” I think the 2008 primary voter was so despondent that they embraced the candidate favored by their tormentors, the MSM.

I voted for Fred up here in Michigan (were he didn’t campaign), and managed to give him a free campaign commerical by giving a decent interview on the local news.

TxCon

is that they become gutless once they get to DC. Remember when Orrin Hatch was a true conservative? These guys really seem to make sure they remain on VIP lists that stay true to their principles.

And it is not just McConnell. I think of Bob Dole, Bob Michel, Trent Lott, Denny Hastert. The list goes on.

I love Jim DeMint, but I fear that even he is vulnerable to this “buddy-buddy” disease that infects GOP leadership.

takemccain2

Um, I never said anything, anywhere in my posts about being ‘afraid’ of Republican primaries as opposed to general elections.

Since you brought up primaries though, let’s go there.

During the 2008 GOP primaries, voters were constantly told by the elite DC insiders, (the same bunch, it should be noted, who endorsed Specter, Bennett, Crist and soon Fiorina), that the ONLY way Republicans could win was by going ‘moderate’ to enhance our chances nationally. Primary voters listened, put McCain in the drivers seat and he proceeded to run one of the worst campaigns for P.O.T.U.S. in history. I could have run a sock puppet on my right hand for president and been more inspiring than McCain.

I trust primary voters to vote for the right candidates and they usually do when they are given TRUTHFUL information about who best represents them and their values. That is why this time around it is different from the past.
Primary voters are plugged in to the internet and talk radio, getting important details on the candidates and how they’ve voted and what they’ve said. These other avenues of information are finally overcoming the beltway bullhorn called the RNC that misled voters for so long.

This didn’t have much to do with my post but since you brought it up I thought I would share my thoughts on the GOP primaries as they stand now.

Now let’s go donate to Chuck Devore so he can whip Carly Fiorina and Tom Campbell in the primary.

Michael Dugas

So I know what you mean. But I’m not sure if maybe we shouldn’t just consider them arms of the same monster as the politicians pander to the banks and protect them for their own selfish needs and I guess it’s basically the same with the banks. The only difference is that the politicians COULD do something about it instead of feeding the beast so to speak.
It’s all one corrupt nut that needs to be cracked and then the rotten portions tossed out.

hickorystick

And your right, the worst of it started with the meddling polticians. What a mess they have created. Muuch of the problem is the banks reacting the the ridiculous market regulations, and there is a large part of greed by the banks.

Bill S

What a load of crap. The field was poor, and McCain came out on top.

Sometimes the choices just aren’t great. in the case of 2008, we would have been far, far better off with John McCain in the WH than the current resident. And if you think otherwise, well, you should probably find another site to spread your stupid.

mbecker908

about the rest of the trash you’re spewing. I have no problem at all with people who don’t “agree” with me. It’s people who try to make an argument in the vacuum that is above their shoulders I’ve got a problem with. And you fit that category nicely.

Now then, as for the tripe you’ve got posted here, you “want” a whole bunch of stuff. There’s nothing particularly wrong with your want list, it’s your “how you get there” list that’s the problem. Oh yeah, you don’t have a “how you get there” list.

You blather on about how much you trust Republican primary voters and then piss into the wind about John McCain getting the nomination in ’08. We had any number of knock down drag outs in the months leading up to the primary. McCain had pretty much NO supporters here and they got roundly pounded on issue after issue when they did stick their heads up. And still, McCain won. And ran a lousy campaign in the general. It’s called politics. And there’s no point in whining like you’re doing about it. See Bill S’ comment below for more detail.

What we need to do is implement a strategy like Cold Warrior’s and take the party from the ground up – see Utah. That requires time, planning and manpower. It also requires going to war with the army we’ve got. Your statement I?m not going to support moderates ever again. is the absolute height of stupidity. You are going to take your ball and go home rather than support a Snowe or Collins in Maine and give two Senate seats to Democrats when there are no challengers on the horizon who are credible in a state wide election there.

The strategy is to build from a conservative foundation and groom candidates. That takes time. And if we abandon incumbents who can win who vote against us once in a while we’ll have no party to work with.

Conservatives in the primaries, Republicans in the general.

http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

Sarah Palin. Had he not picked such a conservative running mate I would have stayed home.

http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

it also is water under the bridge and it opens up a big can of worms.

Since Redstate has already had these fruitless debates several times I would invite you to search them in the archives and refrain from bringing this up again.

acat

And I am convinced that the Repubs are going to continue nominating crypto-dems and RINOs for POTUS as long as the primary system is bent to favor the east coast.

Mew

mbecker908

Over the last 15 years the worst offenders have been southerners and westerners with a smattering from the flyover country. There’s Graham, McCain, Voinavich, Lugar, McConnell for starters in the Senate and let’s not forget GWB.

The leadership positions in the Senate and House have, for decades, been held by Southerners and Mid-Westerners with a smattering from the West. The northeastern Republicans have basically been no big deal. A couple have been a major pain, but other than with party switches haven’t “hurt” us – Specter not included in that group, he did more damage to the party and to the cause of conservatism than any one man in the last 20 years.

texasgalt

and in his very first comment he takes after EE. . . even though he can not spell his name . . . and for the big finish, this greghalvorson declares Lincoln killed 600,000 Americans.

aesthete

in was was the bloodiest (proportionally) conflict in American history. While that doesn’t excuse every single one of his actions, I cut him more slack than, say, Woodrow Wilson. “Lincoln’s War” had the virtue of both being unavoidable and pursuant of US objectives

E Pluribus Unum

And early primaries in non-red states, that’s a particular sore spot of mine.

aesthete

The markup cost of drugs in the current black market is estimated to be somewhere between 10000-20000%. IOW, $0.02 of cocaine or marijuana in a pharmaceutical would fetch about $3.00-4.00 in the current black market. This is mostly the result of the various methods used to transport and store drugs in this market, and the criminal element that needs to be paid off in some form or other. It also explains how drugs can fund such an enormously outsized criminal class — profit margins like that make it easy!.

Now tell me: given the choice between buying marijuana from Lil’ Jose and the boys in a dilapidated, violent ghetto for $100.00, or buying that same quantity from a clean, for profit venture for $3.00, where do you think most people would buy their drugs? Following that, what do you think would happen to the funding for the criminals who sell drugs?

mbecker908

oops.

acat

I was referring to the fact that the first two primaries anyone watches are an east coast enclave and a populist midwestern state.. and the situation doesn’t improve much after that. The Western states are closed out and get to vote for “the guy who didn’t fold” or “the presumptive nominee” … and this year that meant Huck or McCain.

I get the point of the early primaries – prove that the candidates can draw money and talent and build an organisation – but being the big boss is not about ability to organise, it’s about ability to *lead*.

Don’t get me started on “open primaries” – although Operation Chaos wouldn’t have been possible without them that’s sorta like getting a tax refund.

Mew

mbecker908

southernpatriots

The Honorable Zell Miller who was and is a lifelong Democrat, and served the state of Georgia most admirably in numerous capacities for many years, that he did not leave the Democrat party, but it left him. It has deteriorated into the party of media promoted anti-Constitution, corruption, and left-wing ideology. Demorats sometimes speak a semi conservative policy but when elected then vote most of the time with the Pelosi San Francisco values. A representative democracy or republic is our form of government, the best yet man has established. We must defend it and somehow get it back to the Constitution.

JSobieski

is however worth thinking about. Graham is far more problematic to me than Snowe, who is actually quite dependable and probably the best we can do. I put Brown in the Snowe category, although he can be both more positively surprising as well as disappointing (see recent vote on financial “reform”).

The problem is that our folks from conservative states do not embody conservatism the way that their folks from liberal states embody progressivism.

Jesse Helms was a counterweight to people like Kennedy. In the Senate, we don’t have the kind of leadership that we need.

Achance

and Western trail bosses in today’s politics. The mannerisms that establish a habit of command in The South or The West other than Ecotopia really don’t play well outside those places. So, men and women who rise to leadership positions in those places either have to temper themselves or face excoriation by the media, academia, and the self-annointed elites of the “cool” places.

I’m a good example; first born son of old Southern family was ordering people around when I was still in diapers and haven’t stopped since. I couldn’t get elected dogcatcher because a lot of people are really, really scared of people who can deliver organized thoughts in simple declarative sentences, especially if that person has outdoor plumbing. I’m not bragging, just stating a fact, but in my normal orbit, when I walked into a room, nobody wondered who was in charge. Even though I’m no longer a dashingly handsome and powerful political appointee, just a paunchy old retired guy, I still can take over your room.

I don’t know what it is or where it comes from specifically, but America, at least media, moderate America, really, really, really doesn’t like strong personalities, men or women. Everybody knows I don’t like Sarah Palin, but I don’t like her for specific, policy reasons. Most of the people who don’t like her don’t like her for the same reasons they wouldn’t like me; we say what we think and we dare you to argue with us about it. It ain’t new in America, High Noon didn’t come from nowhere, but it sure is worse.

As to the progressives there a lot of little wannabe Strelnikovs over there having masturbatory fantasies about riding their armored train through flyover country with Lara sharing the train with them. It won’t bother me to kill them if they want to start the fight.

Achance

isn’t a profitable nor welcome enterprise here. And unless you’re really, really good with your History, you’re probably out of your league.

From ME to You

Win no battles or win some battles. If you lose all of your battles you’ll never win the war. You will not get a true conservative elected in Maine unless you get a MAJOR shift in the population. I don;t see that happening but God can provide a miracle at His discretion! I won’t mind!

In 2008 Sen. Collins won with 61.5% of the votes, at least 1/3 of those voting for her were “conservative” leaning democrats/independents. Had Sen. Collins not been considered a ‘moderate’ those votes would have gone to Tom Allen a very liberal democrat. Had Rep. Allen become Sen. Allen there would have been even less of a fight in the Senate than was seen!

In Sen. Collins we at least have a chance of swaying her vote, with her opponent you would have had a snowballs chance in….whichever warm place you can think of!

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Conservative. But Also Republican.

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL