« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Reminder to Libertarians and Independents of What the Democrats Stand For

By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary)  |  December 13th, 2009 at 01:39 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

This is just a friendly Sunday reminder to our libertarian and independent friends that in addition to spending hundreds of billions (or trillions) of dollars on a government takeover of healthcare, and in addition to spending hundred of billions of dollars on failed economic stimulus programs, and in addition to implementing worthless environmental regulation that has the effect of a massive tax increase, the Democrats are still wildly in favor of massive increases in government spending on, well… everything.

Senate Democrats overcame a Republican filibuster to clear the way for a vote Sunday on a huge end-of-year $1.1 trillion spending bill that gives budget increases far exceeding inflation to much of the government. The Democratic-controlled Senate voted 60-34 on Saturday to end the GOP filibuster that threatened to hold up the legislation. The final vote would send the measure to President Barack Obama.

…

The measure pays for Medicare and Medicaid benefits, and boosts spending for the Education Department, the State Department, the Department of Health and Human Services and others.

Right after the vote Sunday, the Senate planned to return to legislation to overhaul the health care system, an issue that Democrats hope to reach consensus on in the final days of this year.

In the coming week, Congress may try to take a defense spending bill and attach a measure that would raise the $12.1 [trillion] debt ceiling and initiate new spending and tax cut efforts to stimulate jobs.

Folks, no one is more conscious than we are here at RedState of the failures of the GOP to hold the line on small-government issues.  But the last 11 months have shown us that even at their worst, there remains a huge difference between the level of fiscal irresponsibility between the Democrats and the Republicans, and the Democrats are on the wrong side of that ledger.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Hermes

    I am not a Libertarian, although I have no major objections to most of their views. In fairness to them, however, their position is a bit more nuanced that simple fiscal conservatism. While no doubt, Libertarians (and libertarians) would agree with the argument that Republicans are more inclined to fiscal discipline than Democrats, the GOP is not exactly the party of small government and constitutionalism – at least, of late.

    Here are some big and small-L libertarian objections to GOP policies:

    1. Republicans are not in favor of dismantling the federal leviathan, simply slowing down its growth.

    2. Republicans have not been the champions of civil libery that they sometimes claim to be. Examples here include the Patriot Act, FISA and warrantless wiretapping, massive TSA abuses of authority, and the whole idea of a surveillance society. As some libertarians like to say, “A conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged, but a libertarian is a conservative who’s been tasered.”

    3, Federalism has not exactly been a strong-point for the GOP in recent years. Despite the re-affirmations of the 10th amendment by some states and Governor Rick Perry of Texas, the GOP has not really gotten behind this issue strongly. The party seems very leery of engaging in this debate because of the risky issues of secession, states-rights, and nullification being brought up – to which Dems will immediately accuse Republicans of being Neo-Confederates.

    4. Empire building. This is the real ticking time-bomb in the Republican party as I see it. Paleo-cons and libertarians have long said that nation-building, otherwise known as imperialism, is incompatible with the American conservative tradition, not to mention fiscal discipline. As Americans become more and more war-weary and our national debt-load becomes higher and higher, support for whichever party is advocating lots of spending and overseas adventures is going to wane. Right now that happens to be the Dems, but the GOP is usually happy to assume the mantle of the “war-party.” Isolationism is not the answer, but most libertarians have solid arguments (and the historical data to back them up) for non-interventionism. This issue alone is driving people who are otherwise Republican-leaning away from the party.

    5. Free-market economics. This may seem like a strange objection, but let’s not forget that the bailouts originated with the Bush administration. Additionally, Republicans are far too cozy with corporate welfare and corporate cronyism for their own good. Let’s also not forget the nest of corruption and cupidity that is the Federal Reserve; central banking and the printing of fiat currency are not the hallmarks of the free-market. A robust, genuinely competitive free-market system cannot be built on the partnering of big-government and big-business – that way lies fascism. For the party supposedly committed for capitalism and free-markets, the GOP has been awfully fond of the centrally-planned economy.

    Again, I’m not endorsing the Libertarian position here. I’m simply providing some of the major objections that they have to the GOP’s recent positions. No doubt the Dems are far worse than the Republicans on most of these issues, but these are the things that are keeping many Libertarians from supporting the Republicans. It isn’t that they are supporting Dems; they just aren’t bothering to vote.

    • countessolenska

      more Ron Paul-type agenda.

      The Bush administration and the Republican majorities during that time pretty much ruined the Republicans’ reputation as fiscal conservatives and as the Robert Taft non-interventionists that many Republicans used to be when I was growing up (I am 57).

      In addition, the expansion of Medicare by Republicans makes their criticisms of the Democrats’ health care reform plans as fiscally irresponsible (though they are) sound hollow.

      I’m cheering the Republicans on right now because ObamaCare needs to die, but they need to get some integrity.

      • Hermes

        I agree wholeheartedly with you countessolenska. The GOP establishment is never going to let him become a major player, despite his popularity. He challenges RINO’s on a daily basis and has been doing so for decades; that has made him few friends in D.C.

        A new face is needed to pick-up where Dr. Paul has left off.. maybe Peter Schiff, maybe Rand Paul, Ron’s son. Both are Senate candidates next year. If the GOP is serious about re-embracing fiscal conservatism, these are the guys to back, otherwise they should stop lying about their principles and just admit to being statists.

        • janis

          proposed regarding fiscal conservatism that he has actually gotten passed? And can you explain why he’s regarded as so fiscally conservative yet gets regular big fat pork projects for his district? And that’s after he claims not to have voted for a single piece of pork.

          Shrimp farming, anyone?

          • countessolenska

            Big fat pork projects? Like what? A shrimp farm?

            He favors a humble foreign policy and the reduction and elimination of whole bureaucracies.

          • Hermes

            I don’t argue that Congressman Paul is perfect. Certainly his arguments about pork spending are… disingenuous at best. Shadegg, Flake, Boehner, etc. have been much better leaders on this particular issue.

            Having said that, I don’t see any of them taking it to the Dems on fiscal conservative issues or even constitutional issues. Regarding Congressman Paul’s record… he isn’t known as Doctor No for nothing. He routinely votes against spending bills and massive expansions of federal spending. As far as I know, his Audit the Fed Bill has just passed, which is a major accomplishment and a step toward bringing down the Federal Reserve System.

            Paul’s greatest asset isn’t his congressional record, which as you have noted is spotty, but his understanding of economics and constitutionalism. He serves as a reminder of what used to be Republican principles and I think that is why he is so demonized by many in the GOP establishment. If Dems are arguing that he is simply obstructionist – which I disagree with, by the way, why are Rebublicans so quick to agree? Put another way, why do Republicans feel so threatened by Ron Paul?

          • mbecker908

            And he is a total fool.

            He’s been in Congress for over twenty years and hasn’t even introduced a bill to eliminate anything. He votes no after making sure he gets his earmarks in spending bills. He doesn’t have so much as one ally in Congress in a career spanning more than twenty years.

            Republicans, and especially conservatives, are not “threatened” by Ron Paul. If anything they’re amazed that such an utter failure could attract any support. He has absolutely no understanding of economics and if he does have any knowledge of the Constitution he’s pretty well keeping it to himself because he hasn’t actually done anything with it over his career.

          • Hermes

            “He has absolutely no understanding of economics and if he does have any knowledge of the Constitution he?s pretty well keeping it to himself because he hasn?t actually done anything with it over his career.”

            You are going to have to back that statement up. Paul is on record as a supporter of Austrian economics. He frequently quotes Hayek, Mises, and Hazlitt. Austrians value liberty and people-centered economics, not the discredited clap-trap that is Keynesianism or Marxism. How many people even know what the 10th Amendment is? Certainly few Congresspeople act like they have any idea. Congressman Paul’s knowledge of economics and the Constitution seems pretty solid to me.

            “He doesn?t have so much as one ally in Congress in a career spanning more than twenty years.”

            On the contrary, he is frequently linked to the Republican Liberty Caucus and its members. How many Congresspeople jumped to endorse his Audit the Fed Bill, which just passed, by the way? His ultimate goal is to dismantle the Federal Reserve system which cannot be done overnight. Audit the Fed is just the beginning.

            Also, please remind me of how many Republican Congresspeople have multiple NY Times best-sellers? What current Republican leader, other than Sarah Palin, has the same ability to draw crowds and money like Ron Paul?

            Have you heard of the so-called South Park conservative?

            I think that you have ignored the tremendous support that Dr. Paul has gathered over the past year or two. Is this frustration with the GOP? Likely yes, but you don’t run toward Ron Paul if you are just frustrated with the GOP. His ideas are too well known; people are attracted to the promise of liberty and his vision for America. How else can you explain the Paul phenomenon?

          • aesthete

            are not anathema to the US. Indeed, we had a national bank in 1791 that could be considered less privatized than the current setup, and had one intermittently since then until Jackson killed it. Fiat currency has a couple of advantages: first, it gives people a universally accepted denomination to use anywhere that they go in the country (unless you’d like to sort out your First Bank of Phoenix bills from your Second Bank of San Francisco tender). Second, it allows for controlled inflation, or deflation, of the money stock, rather than the haphazard, and occasionally destructive, permutations of deflation and inflation that private currency has. Third, it gives us a tremendously powerful tool to help combat depressions, recessions, and many other economic maladies, which allows us to resort to methods that don’t involve taking my money away and giving it to someone else. I recommend that you read up on monetary policy, specifically on the history of money and its many iterations (private currency, gold standard, Bretton Woods, etc.). Milton Friedman’s “A Monetary History of the US” is a good place to start.

            Audit the Fed, such as it is, is stupid under the current administration, would make the Fed a more risky environment for competent, and rationally risk-averse professionals, would be a dog and pony show for Obama to whack Monetarists over the head, would provide the Dems a convenient scapegoat, and would highly politicize the Fed.

          • Hermes

            Allow me to respond to your objections, aesthete.

            1) The Federal Reserve Board is an unelected, unaccountable group of bankers who control the US economy through the printing of phony money and the artificial manipulation of inflation rates. They operate without public oversight and their meetings are closed to the press. The idea that such a government or quasi-government agency should have this much power over the US economy is utterly un-American.

            2) President Jackson recognized the threat that a cabal of bankers with a great deal of power over the US economy posed. His actions in shutting down that particular cabal were laudable.

            3) While I agree that your first point has merit, your second and third are terrifying. I have, in fact, read Friedman?s Monetary History of the United States in which he points out that the Fed?s massive expansion of the money supply in the 1920?s was a direct cause of the Great Depression. Friedman was quite right here, but he and his Chicago School monetarist buddies are quite wrong about monetary policy. They should have trusted their otherwise good free-market instincts.

            To quote a recent article by Pat Buchanan:

            “Is it not an admission that, though Congress was created by the Constitution, and the Fed is a creation of Congress, our elected representatives cannot be trusted with the money supply, cannot be trusted with control of the nation?s central bank? To have decisions made in the national interest, we need folks who do not have to answer to voters. If this be true, the republic is closer to its end than its beginning, when Thomas Jefferson said, ?In questions of power, let us hear no more of trust in men, but rather bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.?

            I think Pat is right on target here. Why on Earth do we allow Keynesian central bankers to control the US economy? The Fed does not exactly have a great track record, let?s not forget. They failed utterly in the 1930?s and they failed utterly in 2007-9 with Bernanke completely unaware of the coming recession, yet quick to demand bailout money. Also, let?s not forget the Goldman Sachs connection to the Fed and the US Treasury Department, as well. The Fed in its current form exists to print money out of thin air so that the central government in Washington can pay out vast sums of money without being accountable to the American people. We fight wars on credit, we expand federal programs on credit, and we artificially prop up badly run corporations on credit, yet the Fed keeps the printing machines running day and night. Also, let?s not forget that the Fed?s mission to keep the dollar strong has failed utterly: the buying power of a dollar today compared to the pre-Fed era (prior to 1913) is laughable. Why should we continue to allow this incompetent cabal of banksters to operate without oversight? Their elitism is so extensive that they cannot even bear the thought of having the press present during their closed-door strategy sessions in which the future of the US economy is plotted. Again, how un-American can we get?

          • countessolenska

            It’s always nice to run into someone who is so knowledgeable.

            Regarding the Fed and their behavior, it almost makes you question whose interests they actually are protecting.

          • Hermes

            To protect the Establishment – otherwise known as the Washington-New York-Chicago Axis. The banksters are only one example of the decadent corporate cronyism that has infected the US government. It used to be that conservatives prided themselves on opposition to the unholy marriage of big-government and big-business (also known as fascism). These days, they seem just as happy to jump in bed with the lefties so long as they get their share. Despicable.

          • pilgrim

            Jackson won a battle against the Second US Bank President after fighting for over two years to shut that bank’s doors, and then along came the 1837 panic. Maybe if Jackson could have listened to Webster about working with the bank instead of going into battle against the bank that panic would not have occurred.

          • Hermes

            The Panic of 1837 was the result of the Second BUS’ own existence and policies which directly contributed to the panic. The BUS’ policies tended to create an artificial economic bubble in which investors made poorly informed decisions; those decisions led to disaster for many of them when the artificially created bubble burst after BUS’ closure. Essentially, the market had to correct itself after the intrusion of government central planning in the form of the BUS.

            The current recession that we are in is the result of the same kind of problems. The Fed created an artificial economic bubble in which lots of people made very very irresponsible decisions about credit, lending, and debt-spending. Once that bubble collapsed (as all economic bubbles do), those people and institutions were screwed. The Fed, like all central-planning government agencies is doomed to fail in any mission it is given. Entrusting the US economy to the Fed is, to borrow from P.J. O’Rourke, like trusting teenage boys with whiskey and car keys.

          • pilgrim

            Jackson was grateful to the bank in its services in retiring the national debt. Most economists agree that the period of 1826-1832 as a high water mark for a sound currency.

            Jacksonians at first, desired not to destroy the Bank but to bring it within the party as “spoils of victory”. Names of eligible Democrats were furnished to Mr. Biddle as potential directors. Biddle refused to let party membership influence his decisions. Several letters exist between Biddle and Secretary of the Treasury, Ingham, a fellow Pennsylvanian.

            After the veto, Daniel Webster exclaimed in the Senate, “It manifestly seeks to inflame the poor against the rich. It wantonly attacks whole classes of the people, for the purpose of turning against them the prejudices and the resentments of other classes.”

          • Hermes

            The Jackson-BUS conflict did not occur in a vacuum. The Coinage Act of 1834 and Jackson’s move to stop rampant debt-spending (speculation) both attempted to correct the monetary policies of the BUS. Let’s also not forget the Mexican silver issue during this time and its effect on the US banks and their fractional reserve strategy. Also, foreign trade issues such as the British demand for cotton (which dropped in 1836-7) had a huge influence on US economic affairs. Last, the irresponsible behavior of state bank managers certainly contributed – like their lending out of federal deposits for rampant land speculation.

            Jackson unfairly shoulders the entire blame for the 1837 Panic. For an insightful look into the economics of this turbulent period, see Murray Rothbard’s A History of Money and Banking in the United States or Peter Termin’s The Jacksonian Economy. I’ll note that I think Termin is wrong on a few key points, but his overall analysis is sound.

        • countessolenska

          I think many on the right first need to define what it means to be a conservative. People have differing views about what that means – or a different emphasis. If you asked Erick, he probably would say that a conservative would advocate the following:

          1. Fiscal prudence – advocate small government
          2. Strong and assertive foreign policy
          3. A set of morals (Judeo-Christian) that would animate your views about what government should do

          Ron Paul would advocate the following:

          1. Fiscal prudence – advocate reducing the role of the federal government
          2. Humble, non-interventionist foreign policy
          3. A set of values that make up who you are as a person, but a laissez-faire attitude toward what other people do

          Significant differences there.

          • SteveLA

            Ron “Blame America First” Paul would not get my vote for dog catcher, pretty simple and I think you’ll find that sentiment darn near universal here on RS.

            From one of the Presidential debates “”Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years,” he (Paul) said.”

            Which part of that (expletive deleted) do you care to defend?

          • countessolenska

            And, it appears that some of Ron Paul’s views are not appreciated around here – particularly those regarding foreign policy. I don’t want to argue with you about it.

            I will say that I think many independents did not like the Bush foreign policy, and that it was a significant reason why Republicans lost their majorities in 2006 and in 2008.

          • SteveLA

            countessolenska

            Ron “Blame America First” has by his comments on 9/11 and excuse making/shifting the blame to America for the attacks has pretty well put him on my list of people who I would never support and who’s supporters I have strong questions as to sanity. His supporters rank for me right up there with Truthers and other fringe elements, pretty simple.

            I don’t think you’ll find many takers here on RS that want anything to do at all with that traitor to this country

            You bring the Deity up, you will get slammed here on RS, no doubt about it.

          • countessolenska

            …that you and I have signficant differences in outlook, even though I thought we sort of connected on the “civil war” thread the other night (I think that was you).

            I don’t see Ron Paul as a traitor – quite the opposite. I think he embodies the spirit of the Founders of our country. He could be one of them. He’s actually been compared to Jefferson by some – but a more cranky, idiosyncratic version.

            Also, I don’t think of Ron Paul as a god, contrary to your references to Ron Paul as “the Deity.”

          • SteveLA

            countess

            There are many flavors of RINO, I’m of the liberal on social conservative issues type, and slightly to the right of Curtis Lemay when he suggested how to end the Vietnam conflict; “Start at the DMZ and start bombing North”, “bomb them back to the Stone Age”.

            On crimes like drive by shootings by gang bangers, I am all for summary executions on the spot.

            On spending, I’m in favor of a Presidential line item veto.

            Ron “Blame America First” makes my blood boil. pretty simple.

          • brian_b

            At no point has RP blamed America for the attacks on 9/11. He was referring to OBL’s delaration of war and our reckless foreign policy. He never stated the attacks were justified or that we deserved it.

          • Scope

            Bush’s war policy was not the reason that Republicans lost their majorities in 2006 and 2008. That may be the Libertarian, Ron Paul way of thinking. We lost the majorities because the R’s lost their way on spending frugality. Period.

          • countessolenska

            … in 2000. And his war policies turned me off. That, and conservative big governmentism caused me to go from being a Republican to an independent.

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            that the definition of RINO does often vary and is in the eye of the beholder, but we pretty much know who they are and unfortunately they all seem to be U.S. Senators (pathetically). As for hard, as we’re gonna get, definitions?!?!? well…
            Red-Dogs, RINOs, CINOs, DINOs, PLINOs, and Blue-Dogs, oh my… The Political Zoo – what/who are they? (What’s a NARAWM? like DoDo Whatsherfava)

            It would be nice if we had a HARD RATING of votes versus exact/specific GOP Platform position. Would help deal with the Percenters discussions as to what is RINO!!!!!

            It is easy for Paul to sit in his comfy House seat and pot-shot all day long. Let him run for the Senate (he won’t, he couldn’t win), it would be fun to see him there though. Libertarians learned nothing from 9/11 (they will hate us regardless) and while I don’t like our “Presence” level abroad, and think there are some adjustments/shifts/movements (demands UK and France step up and cover more Human and Financial burdens of maintaining Peace/Freedom) that can be made, to withdraw (same for Afghanistan/Iraq discussions) is to FAIL to learn from History — that walking away and leaving the void invites yet another (often increased in size, scope, toll) War.

    • farstar99

      They talk a good game, then vote Democrat.

  • janis

    If libertarians are not bothering to vote, then they have no right at all to complain about anything. Sitting at home and feeling self-righteous is not participation. If the big or small ‘L’s” want some influence in the R party, then it’s up to them to do what so many conservatives are doing– i.e., get in the game and work to make the changes.

    As for your other points, I roundly dispute the “imperialism” charge. We don’t intervene abroad because we wish to own that country and its citizenry. We have done so to liberate millions from horrible tyranny and oppression. On the practical side, do you wish to make the argument that Iraq is better off under Saddam Hussein, or that the world is just a little lonelier place for his absence? We have built no empires as that word is typically used, we have liberated countries and then stepped back to let them govern themselves.

    I will agree whole-heartedly with your point #3 on Federalism. Fred Thompson was a sincere advocate of it and I think it’s what scared the crap out of a lot of entrenched Republicans in Congress.

    As for point #2, what would the Libertarians have had the government do after 9/11? And would they deny that the actions taken did not keep us secure from further attacks?

    • Hermes

      I really do think that they want to participate – and in some cases, libertarian-types do vote, but they feel utterly betrayed by a party that talks a good game about capitalism, federalism, and free-markets, yet votes against these things time after time.

      Libertarians, whether we like it or not, represent a fair amount of the so-called “independent voters.” When election crunch-time comes, GOP’ers will turn out for our guy, Dems will turn out for their guy, but neithe side has the numbers to decisively win; we need the “swing voters.” I don’t say that our candidates should pander to the middle, but if we actually get candidates who are dedicated to liberty and small-government principles and vote based on those principles, we will get the libertarian vote and win elections. Hands down.

      As for the specific counter-objections that you make, I will try to deal with them as best I can. Apologies to Libertarians if I am mis-stating their position.

      Imperialism for the libertarian (or paleo-con) is not simply the reductionist view of conquering other nations permanently. It is about wasting incredible amounts of taxpayer money and American blood on foreign adventures for frequently shifting goals. As Pat Walsh’s diary on Afghanistan has shown, even the members of our command structure do not actually know what our mission in Afghanistan is. Same with Iraq. I am quoting Congressman Paul’s book The Revolution: A Manifesto, “[W]hat kind of debate is it in which all sides agree that America needs troops in 130 countries?” (p.38) I think that is a fair question and one which too many Republicans brush off as somehow anti-American while Dems just shrug and blame Republicans. Imperialism includes the establishment of permanent bases in foreign nations – why do we need such bases? The American border is porous; everybody accepts that. Why are not our military resources spent on actually defending United States soil right here where they are needed instead of in a mountainous backwater in Central Asia? The Border Patrol is a joke, the TSA is an even bigger joke, and the Coast Guard is handicapped by the federal bureaucracy from doing its job properly. Also, the US has a history of not getting invovled in the problems of other nations. President Washington understood that; why have we forgotten it? Non-interventionism has a long and pround history amongst American conservatives, why is it now shrugged off as anti-American?

      That is the general line of the libertarian/paleo-con objection to interventionism.

      As for the civil-rights issue: libertarians seem divided on the solution. Some argue quite effectively that transportation security should be left to the actual companies that provide the service (eg airlines, who actually know how air travel works, can set up their own security procedures). Others believe that it is a matter for local/state authorities, not the federal leviathan. All agree that the TSA and other federal government intrusion into this issue is questionably constitutional and only raises excuses for more federal regulation of our daily lives.

      As for whether these procedures have actually accomplished anything, possibly they have, but at what cost? We are much more of a surveillance society/police state than ever before and, lest we need reminding, the Obama administration now controls the entire police-state apparatus that Bush created. Do we really think that he’s going to put it to the same use intended by Bush or is he going to engage in fighting so-called domestic terrorism, like the statement by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (part of our Department of Homeland Security) that Libertarians and supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr are militia-influenced “terrorists.”

      • janis

        getting involved with other countries as the absolute standard that we should follow? Countries didn’t have nukes in those days, nor did we engage in a global economy, nor did we travel from here to the other side of the world in a matter of a few hours. Other countries were far removed from us in both distance and time two hundred years ago. Not so now. Nor were people from other countries able to come here and, in the blink of an eye, manage to kill almost 3000 of our citizens.

        Do you think that the United States of America is able to just ignore the rest of the world? What would have happened if we had done so in World War II? Not that we could have since we were attacked, but what would have been the outcome if Hitler had been allowed to prevail? Like it or not, with the economic power that America became in the 20th century, we had to step up and do the right thing. And in that case, the right thing was to stop the evil that was Hitler, Japan, and Mussolini. After that, what would you have recommended we do to stop the spread of communism? Should we have just let the Soviet Union have all the countries it wished to possess?

        What solution do you and/or libertarians propose that America seek in becoming a non-interventionist country? Do we turn our backs on the rest of the world, cease trading with any of them, and do—what, exactly? If you are in business with other countries and that business depends on a certain degree of mutual security, then how do you guarantee that if not by being willing to step up when necessary? Is it fine with you and libertarians for us to just let 25 million Iraqis be tortured at the will of a sadist? The same sadist who invaded his neighbor, Kuwait and would have kept going until he possessed Saudi Arabia and the oilfields of the Middle East?

        Answer those, please, because I’d love to hear the justification for this non-interventionist policy and how it would work in the 21st century.

        As for security procedures that were put in place after 9/11, no, none of them were perfect. The proof of how well they worked is that we didn’t have another attack on American soil until the Ft. Hood massacre, 8 years + after Sept. 11th, 2001. No, I don’t think Obama is going to use the apparatus that President Bush created in all the same ways, but what would you have had President Bush do to defend our country and its people? Did any of us doubt that more attacks were planned? Did you? For all the screeching about the Patriot Act, name me actual people who have brought lawsuits claiming they were harmed by it and have won their suits.

        As to the surveillance society subject, it didn’t take Sept. 11th to accomplish that. It just took– partly– the notion that a municipality could make a bunch of bucks off installing traffic cameras at intersections and filming license plates. Beyond that, the increasingly nanny-state mentality of the western world is to blame for that more so than the Patriot Act, in my opinion.

        As to who turns out in elections, are the libertarians who stayed home out of disgust with the GOP happy with the results of their precious righteous indignation?

        • Scope

          n/t

          • janis

            answered my questions because I’d really like to know how a libertarian would answer them.

            Perhaps the countess would be so gracious?

          • Scope

            I know the countess also posted similar sentiments above, but, Hermes was a flat out liar about who he is.

          • Hermes

            Read any of my past diaries. Please show me the evidence that I am some sort of Libertarian plant.

            I am an unapologetic paleo-con. I have some sympathies for the Liberarian positions on many issues, although I disagree with the underlying philosophy of Libertarianism, linked as it is to Mill and Bentham.

            If you cannot distinguish between the two positions, Scope, you shouldn’t comment on them.

        • brian_b

          “Do you think that the United States of America is able to just ignore the rest of the world? What would have happened if we had done so in World War II? Not that we could have since we were attacked, but what would have been the outcome if Hitler had been allowed to prevail? Like it or not, with the economic power that America became in the 20th century, we had to step up and do the right thing. And in that case, the right thing was to stop the evil that was Hitler, Japan, and Mussolini. After that, what would you have recommended we do to stop the spread of communism? Should we have just let the Soviet Union have all the countries it wished to possess?”

          __US participation in WW2 was absolutely justified. Regarding the Soviets, I was a fan of Patton so you can draw your own conclusion.

          I fail to see how you equate non-military intervention as ignoring the rest of the world. The US can still be involved in fair trade with nations all across the globe without involving our military.

          “What solution do you and/or libertarians propose that America seek in becoming a non-interventionist country? Do we turn our backs on the rest of the world, cease trading with any of them, and do?what, exactly? If you are in business with other countries and that business depends on a certain degree of mutual security, then how do you guarantee that if not by being willing to step up when necessary? Is it fine with you and libertarians for us to just let 25 million Iraqis be tortured at the will of a sadist? The same sadist who invaded his neighbor, Kuwait and would have kept going until he possessed Saudi Arabia and the oilfields of the Middle East?”

          __See above regarding trade. You mention mutual security but we all know that if any poop hits the fan somewhere in Europe, the ME or Asia, it will be the US that bears the brunt of blood spilt, even if our allies can handle things themselves. As far as defense treaties are concerned re-visit WW1. A stupid and pointless war that the US should never have been involved in.

          SH should have been stopped back in ’91 and we should have finished the job. Regarding 25 million Iraqis being tortured by a sadist, there were 25 million Iraqis vs what 200k SH Baath party supporters. Why can’t they defend themselves? Also, the reason we were sold on Iraq was WMD which I believe we all know that SH did indeed possess. After failing to locate those weapons the mission changed, then changed again and again. We have been training Iraqi military and police as well as Afghan long enough. It’s time for them to carry the water. Why is it that we can take some 18 year old farm boy from Nebraska, give him four months of infantry school and another few months of urban combat training, then send him off to defend people that seemingly cannot be trained in six years and show no real ambition to defend themselves?

          As for the oil fields, why must the US defend them? We have our own resources that can be developed and most of the oil we import comes from Canada and Mexico.

          US foreign policy according to Republicans is simple. We will bring Democracy to the oppressed even if we have to kill your children.

          The US Constitution does not provide for “liberating the oppressed”. If you feel that people need liberating then send money to help or pack your bags and grab a gun and go help them that way. It is not the responsibility of the US taxpayer to any more than it is to provide jobs and health care to every person that crosses our borders.

          I may be a little more hawkish about national security then other Libertarians however defense starts at home. Our borders, immigration and ports. We The People should have the first and last say about whom we allow in our country.

          • Swamp_Yankee

            You realize those are not libertarian issues. True libertarians support open borders and liberals border enforcement.

            Its really tough to repsect libertarians. Its become a hodge podge of inconsistant principles born out of a contrarianism. The biggest fools are the ones who formulated their beliefs in the Bush era. There is no rhyme or reason to what they believe. They dont consider themselves conservatives becasue they will disagree with one or two issues. Yet, they call themselves, even though they support one or two issues that are antithetical to libertarian philosophy like border control and opposing free trade. WTF.

            Its not well thought out. Just a bunch of malcontents and angry kids fighting Dick Cheney’s “neocon” private BlackWater army that is amassing in Mexico and waiting to stage a Coup as soon as Obama’s numbers fall into the thirties and Cheney recieves approval from the neocon
            s secret base on the dark side of the moon.

          • brian_b

            Cheney has a private army in Mexico? That is news.

            I have already stated that my opinions do stray from strict Libertarian principles and no, I did not formulate my opinions during the Bush era.

            As a Libertarian I neither need nor want your respect. I am a Libertarian because I share more core beliefs with their platform. Should the GOP at some point in the future return to their roots of Conservatism like say, limited government, fiscal responsibility, non-militarism I may come back this way until then I remain a member of the LP.

          • Swamp_Yankee

            Why Dont You Get Back To Doing Nothing

            Maybe someday when the LP wins a single seat in the House, you can come back in play. Being a member of the LP is like being a member Jedi Party. Its irrelevant. In fact, I actually kind of agree with you. Until the GOP returns to their roots, I bailing and stayting a loyal member of the Swamp Yankee Party. Why not. If the LPs can sulk in their do nothing party. I’m entitled to sulk in my own do nothing party. I hereby declare myself a member of the Swamp Yankee Party. Show me some evidence that the Libertarian PAaty is more relevant than my own just made up party.

          • brian_b

            What does it really matter what party I belong to? Or you for that matter? I can vote for whichever candidate I choose. If that candidate happens to be in the GOP so be it. I can change party affiliation if necessary. I will not however, hold my nose and vote for whomever is against the Democrat just because I don’t like Democrats. When we do this we end up with the same type of government we currently have.

            I am all for the Republicans fighting the establishment to get back to Conservatism. I have much in common with them. My loyalties do not lie with a party. They lie with my principals and character. Neither of which are for sale.

          • zroxx

            “True libertarians support open borders …”

            Depending on how you define “open borders”… you seem to think it means “come and go as you please”, but I don’t think you can read that out of even the Libertarian party itself:

            Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property. [cite]

            That said, what is reasonable border control policy? Seems to me it’s somewhere between no immigration at all and “come and go as you please”. Even the party of “malcontents and angry kids” concurs that reasonable constraints and a balance between liberty and security are necessary elements of border governance.

          • gunnerbs

            -We should not have been in WWI at all, but should have “finished the job” with Saddam in 1991, but should not have gone back into Iraq in 03? Did I get that right?

            As far as your comments about training Iraqi’s and Afgani’s go, I respectfully must say you need to stick to things you know about. I spent many months in Iraq and Afghanistan. How about you? (I have no way of knowing–I’m just asking) You don’t just magically show up in a country and magically in 4 months have an Army of infantry and an Air Force of airmen. You need infrastructure. They need equipment. Trucks, airplanes, helicopters, weapons, uniforms. Agreements need to be made. This all takes time. Even so, the Iraqi’s are doing some fine missions on thier own–yes, with some help from us–but largly on thier own. They are showng promise. I don’t think you know anything at all about this subject–it’s not all as it is portrayed on NBC news.

            We can take an 18-year old in this country an produce a soldier in four months because we have the infratstructure. The 18-year old here doesn’t have to return home at regular intervals in order to fool the terrorists in his town, because if he was gone that long they’d kill his family for helping the new government. No, that doesn’t seem to be a problem here in our US basic training bases does it? Nor are uniforms a problem. Or weapons. Or dorms to live in.

            No, nothing magical about it. Just hard work, for a long time.

        • Hermes

          “Is it fine with you and libertarians for us to just let 25 million Iraqis be tortured at the will of a sadist? The same sadist who invaded his neighbor, Kuwait and would have kept going until he possessed Saudi Arabia and the oilfields of the Middle East?”

          So following this line of thought the US should:

          a) immediately send the Marines to Rwanda because people are being butchered there

          b) immediately send the Marines to Kosovo because NATO is doing such a great job of keeping the peace there that anytime there is a local kickball match, guns come out

          c) immediately send the Marines to Tibet because the Chinese are oppressing the Tibetans whose country they stole

          d) immediately send the Marines to Cuba because of Castro

          e) immediately send the Marines to Burma because the military junta is repressing , killing, and torturing the people there

          f) immediately send the Marines to.. oh, wait, we’re all out of Marines.

          Apparently you subscribe to the notion that America should go bankrupt and allow its children to be slaughtered around the world in order to fix other people’s problems. As for Hitler and World War II, did history start on December 7, 1941, or were there some events before that? Have you heard of War Plan Orange or the US-Japanese trade war? What evidence do you have that the Nazis were interested in invading the United States? Do you believe that such a fantastic project could have succeeded when they couldn’t even take Britain? Maybe Hitler actually wanted to accomplish exactly what he indicated in Mein Kampf, which had nothing to do with the US. The Soviets would have fought the Germans to a standstill, especially with British support. With both sides exhausted, there would have been no post-war Soviet communist expansionism for the US to have to combat.

          As a matter of fact, I do think that the US can and should mind its own business. Non-interventionism and isolationism are two different things. I don’t propose that we close the borders and end foreign trade. Quite the opposite. We can and should have diplomacy and trade with every nation in the world, but we should not militarily intervene in every country that has problems. Unless of course, you want an empire and a pax Americana. That’s perfectly fine, but you had better be prepared to pay the price for an empire and step-up to the plate like the Romans did. Otherwise, the facade of not having an empire when we have troops in over one hundred nations and are actively at war with at least 3 is wearing a bit thin.

          The TSA are a bunch of goons. Remember how they treated one of Ron Paul’s own staff members who was guilty of nothing but carrying cash? You should check out Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show on Fox for a highlight of the loss of American liberty.

          • janis

            be happy to see them. Your little screed is ridiculous and you’ve got to know that, Hermes. None of it makes sense in the real world.

            I mentioned Saddam Hussein because libertarians have such a bug up their behinds about the Iraq War. It was a war that had been in the works ever since the end of the first Iraq War, yet your kind think it was all about the oil, or all about revenge because Saddam tried to whack Dubya’s dadddy, or whatever dastardly plot you’ve come up with lately. And from that one mention of war you extrapolate all these other situations? No, we can’t be everywhere, but where we CAN make a stand for freedom and for what’s right, we should. You don’t agree, I don’t care.

            No, I will not refight WWII with the likes of you. Did I say that Hitler was preparing to invade the US? Nope. So now you’re defending Hitler’s plans in Mein Kampf? Oh, that’s right, you’re a Buchananite. ‘Nuff said.

          • Hermes

            So essentially, naner naner, you’re a paleo-con, so you don’t matter.

            If you read that I was “defending Hitler’s plans,” then your problem is not with my ideas, but with reading comprehension.

            As for the causes or subsequent reformulations of the Iraq War… well, I’m still waiting to see those WMD’s, janis. You know the one’s that were able to be launched at America immediately with devastating effect. Oh wait, we were there for Saddam. No, Saddam and his sons. No, wait, to make a free, democratic Iraq. No, wait, to end the civil war there. No, wait.. sorry I can’t keep all of the reasons that we are in Iraq straight. Which one are we using this week?

            “No, we can?t be everywhere, but where we CAN make a stand for freedom and for what?s right, we should.”

            Ah, a moral argument for immoral behavior. So essentially the United States government gets to decide whose life is most valuable? Can’t be everywhere, so screw the Rwandans and the Burmese, Iraqis are more valuable. No, we need to draw-down in Iraq because the Afghanis are more valuable. Oh, sorry, make that the Pakistanis. Where does it end, janis? You concede to the bloated federal leviathan the right to decide who lives and who dies. How is that in any way shape or form conservative? That’s right out the left-wing authoritarian playbook. Hitler would be proud.

            You have yet to give a comprehensive notion of what form you would have the US government take. I’ve seen tantrums about how libertarians are kooks and paleo-cons are some kind of Nazi-sympathizers, but little of substance. Polemics only get you so far, janis.

        • brian_b

          “As for security procedures that were put in place after 9/11, no, none of them were perfect. The proof of how well they worked is that we didn?t have another attack on American soil until the Ft. Hood massacre, 8 years + after Sept. 11th, 2001. No, I don?t think Obama is going to use the apparatus that President Bush created in all the same ways, but what would you have had President Bush do to defend our country and its people? Did any of us doubt that more attacks were planned? Did you? For all the screeching about the Patriot Act, name me actual people who have brought lawsuits claiming they were harmed by it and have won their suits.”

          You and I are in agreement regarding Obama. My objections to the PA are not for what has not been done but what is possible to do to our fellow citizens. Just as we have all the laws in place regarding immigration making “comprehensive immigration reform” completely unnessary. If current law were actually enforced there would be no need for reform. There are existing laws in place to secure the nation without overbearing legislation like the PA.

          The PA is just like the dubious “jobs created or saved” bs. It cannot be measured. There are those that can and will argue that the PA is the reason we were not attacked again until recently but do you or I really know if attacks were prevented because of laws that were already on the books?

          “As to the surveillance society subject, it didn?t take Sept. 11th to accomplish that. It just took? partly? the notion that a municipality could make a bunch of bucks off installing traffic cameras at intersections and filming license plates. Beyond that, the increasingly nanny-state mentality of the western world is to blame for that more so than the Patriot Act, in my opinion”.

          We are 100% in agreement regarding this.

          “As to who turns out in elections, are the libertarians who stayed home out of disgust with the GOP happy with the results of their precious righteous indignation”?

          I can’t speak for others but I didn’t stay home out of disgust. I just didn’t vote for McCain and although I dread the thought of another three years of Obama, my consicence is clear regarding my vote.

        • countessolenska

          I don’t think it’s possible to remain totally isolated from the rest of the world, nor do Ron Paul or other libertarians advocate that. They are pretty much free traders. At least that’s what traditional libertarians believe. There are some paleocons like Pat Buchanan who are more protectionist on trade.

          Regarding WWII and Hitler, it’s hard to say what could have been done to prevent the rise of Hitler. “Blowback” from the Treaty of Versailles and war reparations demoralized Germans and made them vulnerable to a nationalistic movement. Certainly, Hitler had to be stopped once he started gobbling up European territory like he did. And, the U.S. was in a position to help, as our country wasn’t being physically destroyed like those in Europe.

          Regarding the Cold War, this was a contest of economic systems and a struggle for influence. After WWII, it probably was inevitable. It was a very expensive conflict. We came out ahead, and are now the only military superpower in the world, but we are contuing to pay a big price for this power, one that many Americans may be questioning in these tough economic times.

          Today we aren’t facing an enemy like Germany, the Soviet Union or China. The people who attacked us on 9/11 don’t have a country or an army. They’re not even that organized. Not all Muslim extremists are al Qaeda. They reside in many countries around the world. They appear to be fighting against modernization and globalization, and the U.S., which is implementing these movements.

          To me, terrorists are like criminals with an ideology. As such, they should be hunted down and brought to justice. Ron Paul advocated Letters of Marque and Reprisal to deal with the terrorists of 9/11, and I think that could have been very effective – and a lot less expensive!!

          Regarding Saddam, he had been our ally during the 1980s. And, the U.S. has frequently supported brutal dictators when it suited our purposes. Often, U.S. actions around the world backfire on us.

          Ron Paul was opposed to the Patriot Act and the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, which he viewed (and probably still does) as a gigantic bureaucracy. Whether the implementation of these two things has protected the U.S. against further attack since 9/11 can’t really be known. Certainly, the attack has made the U.S. more alert to the possibility of a terrorist-type attack in this country.

          I don’t view the Fort Hood shootings as part of a conspiracy, but the work of one very sick man who definitely slipped through the cracks.

          • penguin2

            Questioning George Washington’s relevancy?

            Defining terrorists as “criminals with an ideology”

            And bashing the U.S.

            You are really unclear about post 9/11 protection?

            So let me guess, you are a libertarian? Really or what is really your ideology. Because you said several things that we do not believe in here.

          • countessolenska

            Are the people on this site one monolithic whole? I’ve read differing views on foreign policy in this very topic.

            And, janis was the one who questioned the relevancy of George Washington, not me. I was attempting to respond to some of her questions.

          • penguin2

            Though I would say many here, and I think is a problem when defining terrorists as “criminals with an ideology.” and your bashing the U.S.

            I think you are not revealing your true ideology and why you are here, but eventually it will show itself.

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            is Penguin and the many of her friends and Allies at this site …. so don’t mess ;-) lol …. couldn’t resist…. Of course, the challenging of the “we” personalization (and as Pen already admitted bad word-choice) is just a deflection/dodge of the greater point you were making. As we are seeing the monolithic challenges – we ALWAYS mean those we have encountered within any given “identified group” being discussed and not the/an entire set of folks.

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            I refer to Pen directly, directly, then indirectly… then go on to make the same bad “we” word-choice I just finished having fun (moked) with. Ouch!!!

            None-the-less, I’ll take this opportunity to Kowalski and point out that “many” of the Libertarians “I” know are good at doing the “words have meaning” and then going off on tortured twisting and qubbles over the inconsequential (as deflection/distraction) over the crux of the any discussions main points…. As “I” have seen here.

          • penguin2

            Because you picked up on what I entirely missed. The countess focusing on my I/We vs addressing the point. And anyway, I think I’m fine if I say most of the people here, and that is counter to the stuff she is peddling. I would just like her to be upfront about it.

            Thanks, you’re they seem to be fairly wordy and I have to circle back to figure out what they said.

          • janis

            RedState ended up referring to RP as He Who Must Not Be Named.

            You folks live in some other reality.

  • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

    I’ve had this conversation with a few folks, and therefore have it handy…..

    Thinking Third Party? Well… People fail to learn from HISTORY (most Humans [matter of Human Psychology] have to reach their own Epiphany) and gotten the bug to get (woke up, got angry, got) involved only to die off (and went back to sleep politically) with the movements having accomplished NOTHING (or next to nothing, and often the opposite effect of actually allowing more Liberals/Progressives to be elected) and allowing things to continue to get worse rather than team up with others and try a different tact … Libertarian Party FAIL…. Tax Payer Party FAIL…. Nader (other side) FAIL…. Perot/UWSA/Reform Party FAIL…. (and I’ve worked as part of all of them, except Nader, to promote Constitutional Republic-ism) same fate (based on historical evidence, for my opinion/position) will FAIL too if this is all about some other “Third Party movement”… DOESN’T MEAN YOU DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TRY IT if that’s part of your aim. However, If all those folks would have remained involved and exerted control in EITHER PARTY neither of those parties would have drifted so darn far off. And we, IMNSHO, need to concentrate on taking better control of the one with the Conservative Platform and only allow Leaders to filter to the top of the GOP that adhere to Conservative values/principles! Regardless, let’s not confuse Message and Messenger. I WILL (and hope you will too) COOPERATE/PROMOTE ANYONE THAT HAS THE RIGHT — MESSAGE — of anti-Progressive-ism along the way!!!

    [from Conservative Candidates (the Diary)]
    the “Republican Revolution” of the 90′s was mis-labeled, it was really the “CONSERVATIVE Revolution” and it brought Republicans to power; likewise, it was the “Reagan Conservative” Revolution, not a Republican Revolution. Many Republicans forgot that along the way. That led the way for CINO Democrats to lie their way back into power, but it was a “Conservative” co-opted (read: they lied about their intent) that voters allowed themselves to be duped into. Republicans need to REMEMBER that! Conservatism did NOT lose Elections, bad Politicians (with R’s beside their name) did!

    the Conservative Revolution, or Republican brand resurgence, will ONLY be repeated by Conservatives working within the GOP (and its Conservative Platform) and ensure its Leadership is controlled by fellow Conservatives!

    If folks would not have gone back to sleep and exerted proper TAKEOVER of the GOP at ANY/ALL LEVELS (every single Congressional District Committee upward) we wouldn’t be in this. If they get involved and ensure the GOP stays on Platform and we FINALLY weed out (removerinos) those that lets people do the “there is no difference in Party” act/complaint, and can only do so with REAL CONSERVATIVES control at all levels, we will overcome this and not allow the McCainist movements to do this to us again!!!

    hope this doesn’t land up as a double-post, for some reason my first attempt to post went into the Inter-Ether to never be seen :(

  • Streiff

    just to make myself clear, screw your objections. When the people that make these objections start electing candidates… or ever freakin voting for that matter, I might be disposed to listen to them. To date the libertarians have been nothing more that a bunch of sniveling little babies. Screw them.

    • IJB
    • Hermes

      First, as I indicatded, I am playing devil’s advocate here. These are not, save perhaps 1,3, and 5, “my” objections. I am offering them as representations of libertarian critiques of GOP positions.

      Second, the libertarion faction of the Republican Party USED to be welcome. It was one of the bigger components of Reagan/Goldwater conservatism. Heck, even President Kennedy offered fiscal policy that a fair amount of libertarian-leaning people (this was pre-LP) supported. Why is it that you now object to the presence of one of the famous “3-legs” of the conservative position?

      Why do you resent libertarians? Have you read P.J. O’Rourke’s stuff? Or Glenn Beck’s? For the record, both are Republicans.

      • mbecker908

        “l”ibertarians. It’s “L”ibertarians who are the issue.

        Like it or not, Libertarians are nothing but an afterthought in the political landscape. They have never and will never elect a candidate to even a statewide office. Frankly, if they had one iota of sense they’d join forces with conservatives in the Republican Party where they would actually have a shot at having a say in policy.

        • Hermes

          mbecker, I agree that the LP itself has accomplished remarkably little in terms of electoral success. It does not seem likely to accomplish much in the future either. Having said that, Libertarians continue to keep key issues at the forefront of national politics: have you heard of Reason Magazine or the Cato Institute? Both are quoted regularly by major media figures – including Rush.

          Many Libertarians and libertarians do actively support the GOP come election time. Many do not. I certainly am in no position to speak for all of them, but I surmise from the general sentiment amongst the non-participating types that they feel that the GOP and many of its candidates have abandoned their core values – most of which libertarians support. They won’t support Democrats, but I think that Republicans would do better to court these voters, especially with such close margins in many districts. That’s just plain old tactical sense, especially given that they are already sympathetic to the GOP’s positions on many issues.

          • janis

            mythical voters with? Should they come calling on a Sunday afternoon with gifts of weed and porn. or will the standard candy and flowers fill the bill?

            If the libertarians wish to have more influence, how’s about they come courting the GOP instead? How about they get serious about national security, foreign policy, and the reality that none of us are going to get exactly and precisely everything we want in a political party?

          • Hermes

            People are leaving the GOP in droves, janis. The brand itself is becoming toxic. I assure you that it isn’ t so-cons or national defense types that are jumping ship: it’s fiscal conservatives whom they GOP decided didn’t really matter anymore after 1994.

            Nobody is naive enough to think that any political party will be perfect. I assure you that most Libertarians are much more serious about foreign policy and national security than most Republicans. It just depends on your ability to understand nuance and reasoned policy positions. Or is “bomb’em back to the stone age” pretty much your entire notion of foreign policy? Maybe the GOP needs to get serious.

          • janis

            that fewer and fewer voters identify themselves as Republicans. And don’t tell me that it’s only fis-cons that are leaving the party. It’s a range of people who have seen the GOP desert them on issues across the board. National security and defense interests? How about the the GOP being willing to pass amnesty back in 2007? Lots of folks walked away after that debacle. How about those who stayed in the party and got JMac for a candidate last year? Lots more walked away after that.

            Bomb ‘em back to the Stone Age? Hardly. If you look at today’s headlines on Drudge, you’ll find that the Iranians are preparing to handle that themselves. Nuanced enough for you? I’m neither stupid nor uninformed and am quite capable of “reasoned policy positions.”

            On the other hand, you completely lost any credibility when you said that your guy was Patrick Buchanan. While he may have made some sense at one point, he’s gone completely round the bend with his hatred of all things Israel. That’s what you call “reasoned policy positions”?

          • Hermes

            Pat represented a better understanding of Amreican conservatism than Bob Dole and the Establishment. Was he perfect? No, by no means, but please let me know who your perfect candidate is.

            If you do not grasp the influence of foreign nations on US policy, then I’m afraid that your head is in the sand. Israel, China, and Saudi Arabia all have unprecedented levels of influence over US foreign policy; it’s despicable and completely compromises US policy. Pat does not “hate Israel,” he rather loves America and is desperate to set her free of the baleful influence of foreigners.

            What exactly is your reasoned foreign policy? Intervention today, intervention tomorrow, intervention forever!

            Do you believe that it is moral for the United States (or any government) to murder civilians who have done no violence to its own citizens?

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            …especially in terms of economic history. (BTW, are you familiar with the Independent Institute?)

            However, when you start applauding Pat Buchanon, I start to shudder, especially when you don’t find the Jewish conspiracy attitudes of him or his supporters rather disturbing.

            To express moral equivalence between Israel, Saudi Arabia, and China in terms of their influence on American foreign policy exposes the pernicious nativism that is the most offensive aspect of paleo-con philosophy. China has a huge population and a holder of an undue amount of American currency; Saudi Arabia has oil and lust for that commodity has long dominated much of our State Department – not to mention the oil profitst that they have lavishly spent in the U.S. to influence academic instituitions and promote their brand of Islam.

            Israel is a democracy in a sea autocracy and their presence is preventing an outbreak of radical Islam that will create a jihad in Africa and be a base for actions against Europe, the U.S. If you think that the Arab world would love the West and the U.S. if Israel somehow disappeared tomorrow is utter delusion; rather they will have a springboard to coordinate efforts to bring down the West.

            Not to mention your insinuation that somehow Israel supporters are foreigners exerting a baleful influence – I denounce the multiculturalism of todays’ left, but the horse of racial purity has long left the barn; we need to inculcate our Exceptionist values among our immigrants rather than try to bash them – along with regaining control over our borders.

            I guess I conclude that the history of nativism in America and Europe has been ultimately contrary to our Constitutional values and that the promoters of such have and do appeal to fear and hatred of “others” that arouse the passions of the mob.

          • Hermes

            I appreciate your thoughful reply, civil. Unlike some of the others around here, your points are well argued and coherent.

            I agree completely with you that the Arab world would not simply embrace the West if Israel disappeared tomorrow. That would be a hopelessly delusional understanding of world politics and ME attitudes toward the West.

            On the other hand, we cannot escape the fact that Arab attitudes toward the US were generally positive prior to 1953′s Operation Ajax. Even after that, there is a generally pro-US attitude in the literature of Arab authors until 1967. After that, Arab attitudes toward the US begin to sour very rapidly. The central event in the ME in 1967 was, of course, the 6-Day War and the Israeli conquest of Palestinian lands. The fact of the US-Israel lovefest since that time is well-known around the world.

            Why is it that we tolerate actions from Israel that we would never tolerate from any other country? The USS Liberty attack, the Jonathan Pollard spy case, the Marine Barracks bombing in 1982 (which the Mossad chose not to warn us about), the GAO and Pentagon report on the Israeli’s selling US fighter aircraft technology to China (the Lavi affair), etc., etc. Israel is not our friend. This is not even to talk about Rahm Emanuel – who served in the Israeli military and is now White House Chief of Staff, or the AIPAC-Congress spy scandal. I have never understood Israeli exceptionalism.

            As for China and Saudi Arabia, I lump them in the same boat as Israel. Both nations are using US lust for cash (in China’s case) or oil (in S.A.’s case) to exert influence over US government policy. That is an intolerable policy for any nation to follow, yet American politicians whore themselves out to these foreign interests more and more every day. The Chinese are just as happy to steal from us as the Israelis and the Saudis are happy to spread their particular brand of Islam to the US thanks to the complicity of US politicians.

            If finding these activities suspicious and detrimental to the well-being of the US makes me a nativist, then so be it. I am a citizen of the United States, not a citizen of the world. My duty is to my country first – however lost in the wilderness it may currently be. Any attempt by foreign interests to influence my country is morally unacceptable.

          • Aaron Gardner

            Tell me this Hermes, how do you square your belief in non interventionism and your belief that America should make Israel give back land it won in war?

          • Scope

            Now you see Aaron why I posted as I did on his diary. You will never out argue/debate a Paulbot. Again, they just get the thesaurus out and change the words.

          • Scope

            that Hermes thinks we are too friendly with Israel, and, that we shouldn’t be in Iraq and Afghanistan which are muslim countries. He seems to forget that Israel has always been an ally and friend to the US, and, probably one of our only friends in that region. That thinking is distorted.

          • Aaron Gardner

            You do have to debate them to the point that they clearly cross a line. Just yelling Paulite doesn’t cut it. Civil Truth debated him to a point that his anti-semitic leanings were exposed. That is how you do it.

          • Hermes

            Clearly, you did not actually read much of what I wrote. You make baseless accusations – that I am a so-called “Paulite” with no evidentiary basis. Second you throw the left-wing accusation of anti-semitism at me, again without any basis in reality. I had not expected to find such lefty thought police tactics around here. Excuse me for expecting better behavior from so-called conservatives.

          • gekster

            And the reading skills here are just fine.
            It’s spelling we have a problem with, or so it seems.

          • Aaron Gardner

            Clearly you didn’t read what I wrote. I was telling Scope not to call you a Paulite, but rather to debate you on the issues. As far as the anti-semitic accusation goes, sorry but you lean towards anti-smitism. If you don’t like the characterization don’t use anti-semitic arguments.

            In the 6 day war Israel wasn’t the aggressor, it wasn’t a conquest of Palestinian land. Israel did strike first but that was in response to and Egyptian naval blockade and troop buildup on the Egypt/Israel border.

            If Mexico blockaded the Gulf of Mexico and amassed troops on the southern border would you take the tactical advantage or wait until they actually fired upon you?

          • Hermes

            Aaron, thank you for coming to the end of the road on this argument. I have been trying to lead the various discussants on this thread to this point to little avail. I appreciate you succeeding where I failed.

            There are two separate arguments being made here which deserve to be addressed independently of each other.

            1) Is criticism of Israel anti-semitic?

            2) Is pre-emptive war moral?

            Do you clearly link the Jewish religion to the socialist ethnocracy that is the mdoern state of Israel? If so, then history is pretty strongly against you. Examine the early Zionist leaders and the first leaders of Israel and the attitudes of many Orthodox Jews toward the Israeli state.

            Of course, you could be arguing that anti-semitism is race based and that, therefore, Jews are a race rather than religion or culture. This is problematic for more reasons than I care to count. At the very least this would depend on 19th century pseudo-science notions of “race,” all of which have been proven wrong. There would also be the issue of a conservative resorting to the smear of racism, a well-honored tactic of the left.

            Point 2 regarding the morality of pre-emptive war deserves its own diary entry, especially given that we have now utterly threadjacked Leon’s original diary. I’ll try to get up a diary on this today (Monday).

          • Aaron Gardner

            1.) If you don’t believe in the right of Israel t exist you are ant-semitic. It has nothing to do with race and your attempt to re frame my argument in that light is typical of those who can’t win on argument on the merits.

            2.) That wasn’t even a response, you claimed that the Israeli’s were the aggressor in the 6 Day war and that they went on a conquest of Palestinian lands, defend that.

            I think it is completely moral to defend yourself prior to actually being hit, especially when more lives could be saved by preemption than by first allowing a strike to occur against you.

            I would also point out that you can’t decry Israel for not passing on intelligence about a terror attack if you are, at the same time, unwilling to preemptively strike to stop that attack.

            Your foreign policy perspective is filled with more holes then swiss cheese.

          • Hermes

            At no point did I raise the issue of Israel’s right to exist. You have tried to evade the question that I raised about your linking anti-semitism to criticism of Israel. Please answer.

            I will address the morality of preventive war elsewhere as I have indicated. As for the Lebanon bombing, my point was that the Israelis knew about it yet failed to inform us. They denied us the chance to even debate the morality of a pre-emptive strike. That is not the action of a friend.

          • Aaron Gardner

            I seriously don’t think I need to explain myself any further.

          • Hermes

            Any criticism of Israel is anti-semitism in your view. Well, at least we are clear now that Israel is the sacred cow that shall not be spoken badly of. Thank you. Further discussion of this issue would be pointless since you are entirely close-minded when it comes to criticism of a particular nation.

          • Aaron Gardner
          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            Remember that after Israel declared its independence in 1948, the Arab nations, including all its neighbors, declared war and launched an attack. Eventually Israel and its attackers reached an armistice, involving a reduction in Israeli territory – but no peace treaty had been signed by 1967 between Israel and any Arab nation – indeed no Arab nation recognized Israel’s existance as a nation.

            So we have the following situation:

            1) Israel is still at war with its neighbors
            2) Israel had been subject to longstanding blacklisting and other acts of ongoing economic war
            3) Just prior to the war, the Arabs subjected Israel to naval blockade, which is historically an act of war
            4) Arab armies were massing for an attack on Israel

            Under those circumstances, this was not Israel initiating a preemptive war; rather Israel in a state of war taking preemptive action against an impending military attack by nations in an existiing state of war with it.

            So while I will take at look at your preemptive war diary when it comes out, it’s not germane to the 1967 war.

          • Aaron Gardner
          • eburke

            it’s all the eeeeviiillll Joooooooosss fault. Please try to pay better attention in the future.

            Thank you,
            Pat Buchanan

          • Hermes

            Try actually reading what I said before you unleash your fiery indignation on me.

          • Richard Mullins

            and yes I and others have concluded that you come offo nthe it’s tjhe eeeevillll jooooos” canard. I don’t mind being a pragmatist when it comes to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, but Mr Buchannon has come down on the Palestinian side too much. That’s something that I cannot do. Right now, the Palestinians haven’t really learned that firing rockets into Israel isn’t a good idea.

          • eburke

            that wasn’t fiery indignation…it was sarcasm.

          • Leopard1996

            in Joooooooooossss

          • Aaron Gardner

            Instead I ended up with 8 and 2 extra “s”‘s. ;)

          • Leopard1996

            I mean not for nothing, I consider myself a libertariaon on many things, but having a strong national defense and doing things strategically to give us better positioning against our enemies is not a bad thing. Our gov’t does have that right to utilize our army for that purpose.

          • Leopard1996

            What is the official position on the S’s

          • eburke

            I was only on my second cup of coffee and my eyes were still crossed. The extra s? I must go consult my site stylebook. I am not able to recall (geez, I feel like I’m a Democrat in front of a grnad jury or a Congressional committee.

            I shall endeavor to get this right the next time.

            Thank you for bearing with me.

          • Leopard1996

            Of O’s and S’s when referencing the tin-foil hat crod on that subject.

          • Hermes

            I re-read my post and I don’t see that I mentioned making Israel give back its conquered territories. Perhaps you are simply baiting me on the old canard that all Paleos hate Da Joos. Well, sorry to disappoint you, but I have no feelings one way or the other about Jews. They are as interesting (or uninteresting) to me as Tibetan Buddhists, Australian Aborigines, and Amazonian Pygmy tribesmen.

            I have no need to square American non-interventionism with Israeli foreign policy given that I am not a citizen of Israel. What the Israelis do is their business. Americans have no reason to get involved.

          • Aaron Gardner

            It is your claim that our problems with the Arabs is rooted in our support of Israel, I assume you subscribe to the theory of “blowback”? So in order to correct this wrong, supporting Israel’s existence and borders as established in war, we must allow the Arabs to simply take it back? And then all is square? The Arabs will like us and no more war?

            Do you really believe that it will stop there? Do you really believe that America’s interest stop sharply at the end of her borders? Do you believe that all of our trade should be internal, lest we are forced to defend trade routes outside our borders and thus outside our interests as a Nation? You might as well endorse communism in the purist theoretical sense. And you call faith in God irrational, Wow.

          • penguin2

            difficult to have much reasonable discussion. You don’t care about anyone but yourself, and maybe that works for you, but each of those groups you just mentioned would be, and are of concern to me if they were being attacked and destroyed. I know we cannot intervene everywhere or even in some places, but for those of us who have religious faith, I think it would be very hard to ignore such evil happening, all in the interests of being an isolationist nation. IMO, there is a moral responsibility toward our fellow man.

          • penguin2

            to support Israel, as in the point Civil made above:

            “Israel is a democracy in a sea of autocracy and their presence is preventing outbreak of radical Islam that will create jihad in Africa and be a base for actions against Europe, the U. S.”

            I believe the U.N., Western Europe and subsequently the U. S. made a commitment to Israel, long before the 1967 War, of which Israel fought to maintain her sovereignty and right to an existence. Something that the aforementioned groups felt compelled to do after W W ll and the Holocaust.

          • Hermes

            penguin, I would feel more comfortable making nice with Israel if they had (a) not murdered US Navy personnel during their attack on USS Liberty (b) not stolen military secrets from the US on multiple occasions (c) not sold technology that the US entrusted them with to our enemies in China.

            Your argument for US-Israel alliance has two parts as I see it:

            1. The US needs a friend in the ME to halt global jihad and Israel is more similar to us than their Arab opponents.

            2. Because of the actions of the German government during the years 1933-1945, the US has an obligation to support the state of Israel.

            You have also made a third point, not directly related to US-Israeli relations:

            3. Pre-emptive war is moral and should be considered a legitimate tool of statecraft.

            Before I respond to your arguments, have I understood them correctly?

          • penguin2

            as Civil brought it up first, and I agree with it. The second point, about our responsibility and the world’s after W Wll, well you can probably beat me on that in argument, but I adhere to my opinion t based on a perspective of the world that I hold. Now the third point you mention about preemptive war, I do not like the idea of it, but I believe there are times in the history of man, when it is what should occur. This stems from my moral conscience and subsequent sense of moral responsibility. I do not believe that it is acceptable to see evil and do nothing. In fact if eburke, did not already have that saying in his sig line, it would be in mine.

            Hermes, you can probably argue beautifully and I will be hard pressed to debate it all on just an logical level, because for me, I have a faith based spiritual view of the world. I have to leave now, but will be interested in your reply.

          • Hermes

            penguin, I’m going to try to get a new diary up today about pre-emptive and preventive war. I will try to address your 3rd point there.

            Point 1 is pretty much demonstrated as a failure. Global jihad has been exported around the globe without a whole lot of Israeli interference, One need only look at the places that attacks have been planned (Florida, Germany) and executed (Britain, Spain). The Israelis are not a defense against jihad. They never have been and their limited resources guarantee that they never will be. The job of Israel’s military and intelligence apparatus is to defend Israel. Defending the US or Europe is not their job, nor would I expect them to assume that it is. The mass immigration of non-assimilated Muslims into Europe virtually guarantees that global jihad will succeed there. There isn’t much that the US or Israel can do about that. We can foucs on stopping the spread of the jihadi ideology here in the US, which I am all in favor of. Israel has nothing to do with that strategy; it’s all about defending our borders, disentangling ourselves from the thrice-damned Saudis, and working to assimilate those Muslims who are currently living in the US.

            Point 2, as you’ve shown is just silly. While the US and other nations of the world had and have an obligation to shelter persons seeking asylum from genocide that in no way obligates us to an alliance with another nation regardless of that nation’s purported origins.

            I have no problems with your faith-based worldview. Indeed, my own views are very much based on the concept of Imago Dei.

          • penguin2

            Since that was the action of the countries post w W ll, it cannot be abandoned now. Israel has been established, and to think that the unrelenting efforts of the Arab world to destroy that country, is a card that should be allowed to play itself out without our intervention, well that would be morally reprehensible, IMO.

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            As far as why the Arabs changed towards the U.S. after 1967 – remember that our previous policy had been very accomodating to Arab interest if not anti-Israel. In particular, our acquiescence to the Arab blacklist against American companies that did business with Israel, or for that matter, acquiescing to their denial of visas/entry if you had a Israel stamp in your passport indicating you had visited there. And then there was the whole Suez incident after Nassar illegally nationalized the Suez canal and teh U.S. forced Israel, Britain, and France to give back the canal to Nassar, who used it as another front against Israel. And our acquiescence to denying access to Jewish holy sites in the Arab-controlled areas Jerusalem and the barring ofJews thereto, including denial of access to the Temple Mount/Western Wall.

            So of course, things changed after 1967 when our government realized that the Arabs wanted to destroy Israel and decided not to continue facilitiating that goal.

            And as far as your litany of offenses “unfitting of an ally” – most of what you identify are simply nations acting in their own interests, which does include spying on your allies. There are some chapters to the Pollard case that remain undisclosed, by the way, that makes the U.S. determined to keep him behind bars for life. Similarly there’s stuff we don’t know about the Liberty attack, but again interests will diverge.

            So you demand lockstep submission from any of our other allies?

            And don’t forget all the technology sharing and intelligence sharing that Israel provides to us.

            As for the Lebanon, I haven’t read the Liva report, but there is a definite prospect that tipping off the U.S. would have compromised, Israeli intelligence network – and they made the judgment that the latter was more important. And besides, Israel is not responsible for our incompetence in not better defending ourselves against attack. We don’t know all the facts.

            And as for sales to China, the Clinton administration had no qualms about selling our secrets to China. And again, we don’t know all the facts.

            * * * * * * * * * *

            But behind this is a larger point – that as an open society Israel is far more open to reports that expose its shortcomings – and manupulation by countries that control press aspect. We read volumes about the relative handful of people killed by Israel airstrikes in the last conflict (some of which were fraudulent) but what do we read of that thousands of moderate Palestinians killed by Hamas – that doesn’t get reported.

            Living in a war zone for 60+ years is rather different than living in American.

            That doesn’t mean blind support for everything that Israel does. But it does mean forebearane and recognition that our mutual state interest coincide to a greater degree than they do with the Arab states that remain hostile to Israel.

            And the map doesn’t change.

      • Scope

        that you are not a Libertarian, and are only playing devil’s advocate. That is a very false assertion, as your continiung comments bear out. You know that Ron Paul is not a highly regarded figure around Redstate, as has been pointed out above. In fact, many here see him as the loser that he is, and, has always been. The Libertarians have never gotten the first skin cell of a toe hold in America, and, Ron Paul, and his mentally challenged cultists, have in fact given Libertarians an even worse name.

        You say that many of them stayed home on election day in 2008. Then you all have what you deserve in the coronation of the new Communist, you helped him win the election. Believe me, there are not many that were happy with the R candidate, McCain. Those of us that held our noses, and did vote, knew the dangers of an Obama presidency. The Libertarians, being the party of little stubborn choldren, thought they were justified, because they didn’t have their perfect candidate. That mentality exists through today with the Libertarians.

        The Ron Paul cultists still hold that if any candidate for state, local or national does not abide by their unreaslistic demands, they will punish the country by staying home until they get their ideal candidate. It will never happen. There are alot more rational people who understand that to adopt the Libertarian positions, is to come closer to anarchy then to a civilized country. From a resident member, who has Libertarian leanings- Unless the population becomes a majority moral society, the goal of the Libertarians would lead to chaos at best.

        The Libertarians seem to be fixated with money. If defending our country, and keeping military bases worldwide open, such as Landstual (sp) in Germany, where our wounded military members are taken for emergency lifesaving treatment were closed, should they just die. Oh, I forgot, you guys hate the dollar cost of wars. Even the idiot in chief, in Norway, finally has gotten the message that the world isn’t always a pretty place, and, there are many out there that want the US more or less wiped off the map. We stand in the way of the radical muslims that hate Christianity and/or Jews. And don’t forget, we in the US are greedy, and, should be brought down more than a few pegs on the ladder, right into third world status. I really believe that the Ron Paul Libertarians also believe this.

        As to your guy, Ron Paul, before the 2008 election season, he was a nothing nobody. He made a couple of speeches about “how bad the US was on monetary policy” from a position where he had no right to speak. If he had something to say, he had 20 years to do it, but, sat like a little mouse in the House and just voted no to literally everything. Where was his voice for all those years that bad stuff was going on in the Congress. Did he ever speak out forcefully against Clinton’s policies and plans, particularly when Clinton had the majorities in his first term- NO. If I am not mistaken, he ran for the presidency the first time, on the Libertarian ticket, during Reagans presidency.

        You have attached the names of Reagan and Goldwater together in one of your posts. They were miles apart on the social issues. Reagan won, not by abonding the social conservatives, but, by embracing them. Guess what, he didn’t find the need to embrace the Libertarian views that a woman has the right to do anything she wants with her body, including getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy, he didn’t embrace an amoral society where you can do whatever you want as long as you don’t tread on me. And, the Libertarians have this insane notion that staying out of persoanl lives is just, until someone excersizing their “rights” infringes upon the Libertarians choice of rights.

        You are wrong. That is why the Libertarians will never gain any momentum in this country. Ron Paul just happened to incite a bunch of mentally challenged, do it my way or else, fools. Unfortunately, those fools opened their wallets big time for their deluded “CAUSE.”

        • janis
        • Hermes

          As I indicated, I am not a Libertarian. I am a paleo-con. Ron Paul is not “my guy,” as you indicate. The last time that I had a “guy” in any Republican primary was 1996 when Pat Buchanan ran. After Bob Dole gave the paleo-cons the finger, I was pretty much done with Republican presidential primaries. I continue to vote in local and state primaries because I like to have my voice heard as much as the next guy.

          Contrary to your numerous caricatures, Libertarians are not monolithic: there are Randians, minarchists, anarcho-capitalists, and any number of other mixtures of those groups. Dr. Paul’s position on monetary policy is far superior to the banksters at the Federal Reserve who are nothing if not a pack of collectivist, bureaucrat statists. We should beg the Federal Reserve and its inflationary Keynesian pseudo-economists to run our economy for us. That’ll work so much better than an actual free-market economy without fiat currency controlled by a central bank.

          As for the Libertarian position on abortion: it depends on the person. Some are pro-abortion, some are anti-abortion, but just about all consider it a matter for the state or local level, not the federal leviathan. Libertarians are not libertines; your polemic is targeted at a straw-man construct of Libertarian beliefs, not their actual nuanced positions.

          “And, the Libertarians have this insane notion that staying out of persoanl lives is just, until someone excersizing their ?rights? infringes upon the Libertarians choice of rights.”

          Yes, this is utter madness. The idea of morality being imposed upon the American people by the federal government is much more amenable. We should WANT, indeed beg for our federal masters to regulate every aspect of our lives. Please, Mr. Government Agent, sir, please tell little ole me how to live my life. I’m just not up to the task of doing it myself.

          While I like a good polemic as much as the next guy, you’ve given remarkably few critiques of actual libertarian ideas here, scope. A lot of strawman arguments, but not much critique of the ideas behind libertarianism. In fact if I didn’t know better, scope, I’d swear that I was reading a comment on Kos or Huff Po. Your ideas seem awfully similar to left-wing fascism.

        • aesthete

          I think that you’d find that libertarians (little “l”) have more in common with conservatives than either group would care to admit: the Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org/) is a great outpost of libertarian thought, and some talk show hosts, such as Glenn Beck, self-identify as libertarian. Sure, there are the idiots who vote for Ron Paul, think that weed + poon equals a coherent political philosophy, and that fall for every conspiracy that they can get their hands on, but don’t make the mistake of thinking that that is all that there is to libertarian thought. That said, even though libertarians probably had more reason than most to stay home (more than the SIVVs, anyways), it’s idiotic, as some have already said, to critique from the sidelines, do nothing, and then be surprised/angry when your policies aren’t being brought to fruition, as libertarians have been doing for the past 8 years.

          • Hermes

            Me or Scope? Certainly I have mentioned Beck, Cato, and Reason Magazine as paragons of libertarian thought and I have noted their compatibility with much of conservative thought. Additionally, there are excellent libertarian thinkers whose works bear no resemblence to the juvenile libertine fantacies of some: Mill, Bentham, Madison, and Jefferson, among many others.

            Apologies for my confusion if this was not directed to me.

          • aesthete
  • denniswayne

    First, thanks for the “reminder” post, and for the spirit in which it was delivered. Although, all indications are the independents (a very large pct of which are libertarian-leaning) have been doing as you recommend; recent polls show a 44 pt swing since November. Democrats are doing very poorly with independents, and interestingly not particularly due to the Republican Party having become more appealing – the Democrats are doing this damage all by themselves.

    For what it’s worth, I have voted Republican for a very long time. But unfortunately, for quite a while now it has been primarily because of how truly awful the Democratic Party has become. It’s well known that the number of independents has been growing steadily, and that has been more at the expense of the GOP. Many independents see the fundamental problem to be that a political class has evolved in Washington; the primary focus seems to be on getting and keeping power. This can somewhat be expected of Democrats, given liberals obsession with strong centralized control. But for the GOP, besides being bad in and of itself, it also represents an abandonment of the Party’s historical core principles of decentralized govt.

    Finally, I would just offer that independents do not fit into a narrowly prescribed definition, no more so than do conservatives. Independents vote in great numbers, and recently in some elections have outnumbered both Democrats and Republicans – this block often determines the electoral outcome. Furthermore, most libertarians and independents are in natural agreement with conservatives the majority of the time, although the positions may originate from different philosophical origins. If we can focus our energies on the many where we concur, and maintain mutual respect on the few we may not, together the GOP might again come to represent what I am convinced is the majority of Americans already inclined in this direction.

    • IJB

      …Anymore than any minority demographic is monolithic.

      There are *plenty* of left-leaning independents who aren’t Dems because they perceive the Dems as being too “moderate”!

      Similarly, there are plenty of Independents who barely engaged in politics, and hace no real deep feelings about either party because they just don’t think about it very much.

      So trying to pretend that all Independents are “libertarian-leaning” is inaccurate, at best.

      • denniswayne

        I wrote that a large pct of independents are libertarian-leaning, not “all”, and I think the polls bear this out – as long as an overly narrow definition is not used. I said nothing, at least not intentionally, to remotely suggest that independents are a monolithic block, and in fact I state that they do not “fit into a narrow prescribed definition” which is another way of saying there are definitely differences.

        As far as there being left-leaning independents, well, of course there are. Plenty, even, in absolute terms. However, this is a very large block (as much as a third); I don’t think polls indicate the percentage is comparatively large. I’m originally from an area which is heavily ultra-liberal Democrat, and IMO the greens and Naderites for example tend to align with the fringe leftist parties.

        My main point was that independent and libertarian-leaning voters have been moving in precisely the direction that the posted topic suggests, and that this is a good thing. And that, with the common ground shared with conservatives as articulated on this site (as opposed to power-driven beltway Republicans), there might be good potential.

        Let’s focus on the positive; there is after all a lot on which we can share consensus.

        • denniswayne

          I didn’t phrase my second paragraph very well. The “very large block” I meant to refer to independents, and that while there are certainly a significant number of left-learning voters in that block, I think that as a percentage this group is not particularly large.

          • Scope

            If you have been reading here for the past few weeks at least, you will see that the leader of Redstate, and a very knowledgable and influential conservative, has been posting our disgust with the Republican leadership in the Congress. I promise you, most of us are as disgusted as the right leaning independents. The problem for those independents seems to be that they sit on the outskirts, and then complain when the Republicans don’t do right by the party. The secret is to get involved in the R party, and, help to change the dynamics of the Washington elites. I’m sure you have noticed that the McConnells and Boehner’s are not giving us the best fight that they can. Help us to win this battle. The independents would be richly rewarded if they spoke up and helped.

          • denniswayne

            Thanks for your reply. I’m relative new to RedState, so I haven’t seen all the past articles you refer to, although I have seen recent pieces and have seen the site linked elsewhere about this. That is, yes, I’ve got the gist.

            Your points re involvement are well taken. Independents I know invest a lot of time in politics, but you’re right, not with the Party. Many are intensely disgusted with the whole Washington political class thing. And frankly, many don’t feel they would be welcomed by either the establishment or the conservatives trying to take back the Party. There is an awful lot of polarization and anger now, all around.

            Thanks again for the diplomacy. Message received.

          • IJB

            30% of all Independents is pretty large in my book.

            Anyway, I’d certainly challenge your assertion that most “Independents” are “libertarian” types – they’d be a significant percentage of Independents (maybe 20-30%), but by no means a majority or even a plurality of them…

          • denniswayne

            Please re-read my posts. Previously, you said that I wrote “all”; I did not. And as I made a point of clarifying in my reply above, the third I referred to is the independents block. I haven’t seen a definitive breakdown within independents, but everything I’ve read seems to indicate there is a substantial percentage who tend toward conservative and/or libertarian. Moderates probably are a plurality. Left-leaners at 20% sounds reasonable, doubtful more than that. But . . .

            What matters is that, with elections now often determined within a range of 6 or less points, and with the Democrats becoming so destructive, we who have much in common should work to align together. I took the “reminder” article in that spirit.

  • brian_b

    As a Libertarian I can say that I do vote and in every election. I don’t vote GOP unless they have a record of being Conservative. No taxes, less government intervention (national and international), defender of 2nd Amend, strong border / immigration…

    That being said, I will not vote for any Democrat. Ever.

    I strongly support our troops and action in Afghanistan even as I believe it is now time to come home. I have never understood the foolishness of our Mesopotamian Misadventure. Every time a goal was reached, we were told that we were there for another reason. First it was to stop SH from getting WMD, then it was to get SH and his sons, then it was to prevent civil war, blah, blah, blah.

    There are a number of Republicans out there that do support the Constitution but not nearly as many as they like to claim. No where in that document does it give us “moral authority to liberate the oppressed”.

    I prefer the term War Mongering Buffoonishness to Imperialism. Just because Libertarian’s don’t believe we need to run around the globe beating down those who we disagree with politically does not make us Isolationist’s.

    I know of no L(l)ibertarian’s that are demanding more representation in the GOP or those who are otherwise acting like spoiled brats.

    • Scope

      You say you don’t want isolationists polices, yet the Libertarians put a monetary price tag on every war. Do you people not understand that there are many extremists that want to destroy the US? I’ll say again, I believe that the Libertarians are all about dollars, and, not about the protection of the citizens of the United States. Without citizens, why does money matter? There are many other wise ways to save US money, but, our national security is not one of them.

      • brian_b

        As stated above, I absolutely approved of force in Afghanistan. I cannot speak for any other Libertarian but most of our foreign problems are due to our foreign policy. We can agree that there are terrorists that need to be dealt with I don’t believe that we need to go bombing the world to protect ourselves. I want American citizens protected just as much as you but that needs to start with border enforcement and immigration control. I am in no way an advocate of putting a price tag on the lives of my countrymen and women.

        Perhaps I lean away from the LP a touch regarding national security.

        • Hermes

          That is a much better description of the Libertarian position on our foreign policy than my own attempt. Thank you.

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            that REGARDLESS of what we do they will HATE US!!!!

            Withdrawing, as many Libertarians want (not those here particularly), for our own self-interest will be seen as WEAKNESS and/or played up as AMERICA DOESN’T CARE ABOUT ANYONE! Having left voids allowing our enemies to step into the void to impose their oppression.

            Being involved, and it is played up as “our imposition” on others.

            It DOES NOT MATTER, our enemies will spin it to their own Oppressive agendas. Failing to learn the last 200 years of History regarding Warfare only ensures some future massive conflict again. Even the Soviets having “imposed” its presence provided some degree of Peace in parts of the World now again Fighting. These REGIONAL battles are going to spill over into something more grand in scale (if you just appease) if they aren’t dealt with on each of their own basis’. I don’t like the need to engage, but I recognize the much worse alternative.

          • Hermes

            “that REGARDLESS of what we do they will HATE US!!!!”

            Do you regard our enemies as insane? If so, then please explain their highly rational and extremely well-thought out strategy to influence the Spanish elections.

            If they are, as I suggest, highly rational actors, then there is a reason that they hate us. We may not like the reason, we may not agree with the reason, but there IS in fact a reason. There are essentially two choices for dealing with that reason: acknowledge it and try to correct it or kill those who hate us without having to muck about with wondering why. I much prefer option A. Not because I am weak, or isolationist, or in some way anti-American, but because war is killing and Predator drones, artillery shells, and air-dropped bombs do not discriminate between the guilty and the innocent. If wars were still fought with swords and spears, then some argument might be made that so-called “collateral damage” could be limited. Unfortunately, the loss of autonomy in our current war-fighting technology does not allow for target discrimination.

            You say, “It DOES NOT MATTER, our enemies will spin it to their own Oppressive agendas.” If that is true, then it hardly matters what we do and leaving Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan won’t make a difference. So they cast us as weak, who cares? As you point out if we stay they cast us as immoral butchers of innocents which in some specific cases we are.

            The real, gritty, fact of the matter is that people are dying. American soldiers and civilians and Iraqi/Afghani/Pakistani soldiers and civilians are dying. Every single day. They are fighting because we are in their country. They quite rightly object to that. If they came to our country as invaders, we would quite rightly object. We are fighting because… well, no one seems to know why anymore. See the recent confusion between Gen. McChrystal, the SECDEF, the National Security Adviser, and the President if you need proof that no one knows what we are doing in Afghanistan.

            With no clear idea of what we are doing or why, we are essentially killing people for no real reason. Additionally, we are bankrupting our nation and allowing the precious blood of our soldiers to be spent for nothing. I don’t find it particularly un-American or weak to ask WHY! Why on Earth have we not ended our occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan and our war with Pakistan? If the answer is that we are preventing a civil war… well, it sounds harsh, but that is their problem, not ours. Our military is meant to protect OUR borders, not the borders of Iraq, Af-Pak, etc. There is no effective moral argument that can be made to remain in these three countries. Nor was there a particularly good one to be made when we first invaded them.

            There’s been enough killing and enough dying. We cannot afford any more of either.

          • brian_b

            If we are to leave Afghan and Iraq you state that we will be seen ase weak. So what?

            Why should we continue to spend our grandchildren’s money to ensure that Iraqi’s can vote? Or Afghani’s for that matter?

            The US military has a job of protecting the US. Our occupation Ira

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            just to name a few, REGARDLESS of what Foreign Policy we undertake. Becaue they are Fanatics that believe everyone must live under the Oppresive mindset/lifestyle they wish to impose on everyone…. Was that simple enough for you to grasp!?!?!? Because it is THAT SIMPLE and no need for paragraphs to cover it!

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            and I didn’t even have to bother to mention about how all so many of us Christians and Jews live here about how/why they will always hate us and want to destroy us….. But he/they can’t get past the Conspiracy Theory [including 9/11 thrutherism] laden Foreign Policy hangup that is their stock and trade.

            And as Scope (I think it was) said, as well as even others, elsewhere, they (not all “Libertarians” but at least ultra-Paul-ites) are just Paul-ite-Trolls or Paul-ite-Mobies. Firm in their quasi-Religion-Politics (as bad as Liberals) not rooted in reality.

          • brian_b

            If we are to leave Afghan and Iraq you state that we will be seen as weak. So what? If we were actually strong at home. Again, so what?

            Why should we continue to spend our grandchildren’s money to ensure that Iraqi’s can vote? Or Afghani’s for that matter? I don’t give a s***t about them any more then they give a s***t about me.

            The job of the US military is to protect the US, not liberate anyone. And running around the globe brow beating peoples is not a viable foreign policy.

            The statements that “they hate us because of our freedoms” is stupid and nearly completely false.

            Some hate because of our mindless Pop Culture, but most because of our foreign policy which can be summed up in four words: Arrogant, Beligerant, Stupid and Dangerous.

            I am not the writer that Hermes is, nor am I as as able to illustrate history, but he has put all of the commenters too shame. Including me of course.

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            is the actual/real point to be learned from History. To leave the void and allow them to fester and grow to an even greater threat TO US (regardless of whether or not either of you give a darn about any other humans that will be slaughtered in the meantime) is failing to understand how Nations going back to sleep after having fought the previous war had led to the next greater conflict through neglect of even their own long-term well-being/self-interest.

            So let’s all just allow Afghanistan go back to the wolves and Pakistan eventually fall to them while Iran goes nuclear and you have the entire ME that will go up in flames and the greater losses of Blood and Treasure that will result.

            Again, anyone that can’t grasp that from the History of the last couple hundred years of Evolution of Conflicts — I can’t help ya.

          • brian_b

            First, You’re correct. I don’t really care if the ME goes up in flames. It’s not our problem. We get very little of anything from them or the region they occupy.

            Afghanistan and Pakistan belong to the Afghans and the Pakistani’s,not us. It is their responsibility to defend themselves.

            Republicans belief that all nations and people want Democracy is pitiful and not well thought out.

            Any argument that our withdrawal will lead to problems is well, stupid.

            Leaving nations and people to defend their own values and principals may not be a Conservative value but then again Conservatives don’t seem to care about others values and opinions. Unless of course they agree with their politics.

            If Iran goes Nuclear? Do they have the capability of hitting the US? No. Can we continue missile defense to counter such a threat? Yes.

            Do I give a rats ass if Iran or for that matter Israel blows up the entire ME? Nope.

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            We can not longer claim ignorance or inability – and we cannot somehow wall off our nation and shut off the rest of the world. “No nation is an island” – to update Donne – like it or not, we’re all interconnected. If the rest of the world falls to tyranny – we will not escape their fate. (Which was why the elves in Middle Earth could not simply wall off their lands and forget about destroying the One Ring. leaving the rest of Middle Earth to fall subject to Sauron’s power.)

            Not to mention that many abroad see freedom and liberty but face superior firepower. If we just say to h*ll with the rest of the world, then we have lost are salt and will soon be trod underfoot, along with our material prosperity. If we don’t become become a totalitarian state ourselves first.

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            that if you wait until your enemies have the means and opportunity (especially if you continue to IGNORE THEIR DIRECT THREATS and still stupidly appease them) to start lobbing the nukes into your cities and mount the invasion of your shores until they’ll bother to do something about and not realize that at that point it is TOO LATE in this era is amazing.

            To not recognize the rest of the Planet in flames somehow doesn’t “effect us” (Personal safety or Financially wise) is just beyond dumb. Libertarianism has become a quasi-religion (as Climate Changers and as the bulk of them are 9/11 truthers) as much as Liberalism has been. There is ZERO that will shake them from their DENIAL of anything that goes on around them will somehow ever encroach upon them if they keep their head firmly buried up their… er… sorry.. I mean… in the sand! ;-) lol Right up until the time bombs start falling in their neighborhood as Chamberlains relatives did in England!

          • brian_b

            Civil, who is saying anything about walling off our nation? I am a strong advocate of free trade.

            While I appreciate the LOTR reference, I in no way advocate isolationism. Which is in fact not the same as “non-interventionism”.

            Tyranny will not come to our nation from the outside but from within.

            I submit that we should as a free people help those who ask but it should in no way be some obligation of the federal government and the US taxpayer.

            The best way for the US to promote liberty and freedom is to first practice them itself. Currently we as a nation cannot lay claim to these.

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            given this scenario of which you care not if the entire ME is burning!?!?!?

            So while we do nothing you expect they’ll want to buy Dust Pans and Brooms from us for them to clean up the pieces.

            OK, so you’d rather be a War profiteer. I suppose we’ll make a tidy sum for some time selling whatever until enough of the other Infidels are over-run until they do find the way to lob those Nukes you are so sure they can’t get here yet! Worked real well right up until Pearl Harbor too – but, of course, you’ll ignore the application of that lesson to this direct comparison which again led to the point of the GREATER toll of Blood/Treasure ….. nevermind….. dismissed….. I’m done feeding the Trolls.

          • brian_b

            Libertarians and Conservatives have more in common than not. Our (ok. my) biggest complaint is the use of government to obtain/pass legislation that you morally agree with.

            Republicans use the Constitution as a prop. From one side of your mouths you claim you admire and love the Constitution as the law of the land and from the other you pass law that is absolutely counter to that document, ie.. The Defense of Marriage Act / the Patriot Act.

            At least Democrats are honest enough to tell us the Constitution is old, out dated, dead and useless.

            But, just like Democrats, Republicans use the military to forward your political agenda regardless of the Constitution. That political agenda is no different than that of the Democrats. Republicans believe they are right in bombing and destroying peoples in the name of Democracy just as Democrats believe that they are right when they bomb others in the name of restoring Democracy and Human Rights of peoples that don’t necessarily want or need help. Let alone the fact that the Constitution does not allow for it.

            Where we, (I) believe the Constitution to be the be all end all of the law of our land Republicans and Democrats use it to further their agenda. Republicans care no more for the Constitution than Democrats. Give out all the pocket copies of the Constitution you want. You are still fake in your reverence of the document. Let alone the Founders.

            Fiscal Conservatives and Libertarians can agree on many issues. It’s the pathetic moralism Conservatives cling to that prevent us from defending you and your candidates.

          • Achance
          • penguin2

            But when they say “It’s the pathetic moralism Conservatives cling to”
            I don’t see much acceptance. I know we have some Libertarians here, and others may lean that way on certain issues, so are these folks part of an extreme for them or how Libertarians generally are?

          • penguin2

            of the others who have showed up very recently. The Libertarians we have on site; I don’t see them saying this stuff.

          • gunnerbs

            “pathetic moralism Conservatives cling to”

            There it is. The reason Libertarians infuriate me, and why I could never be a big “L”-Libertarian, even though I have little “l”-libertartian leanings.

            That’s right, Brian, I “cling” to my “imaginary friend” Jesus. Yes Brian, I have morals and think they are vital to our country’s well-being. The country was founded on morals, Brian. Build a bridge and get over it.

            By the way, particularly on this site, “Republican” and “Conservative” are NOT interchangable–no matter how much doing so furthers your argument.

          • Scope

            they consider themselves to be wordmasters. They ramble on and on about their views, and, continuosly preach about how wrong and dumb those that don’t buy their deluded visions are. They NEVER give up on what they have adopted as their principles, and by dang they are proud of it, and can sleep peacefully at night. As has been successfully argued above, they are a very small minority, as, most rational and moral people consider them off the deep end. They buy every conspiracy theory, and, where none exist, they create them, as when Paul said in a debate that the US brought the 9/11 attacks on ourselves, because we are always poking our noses in other countries affairs. What they refuse to recognize is that our military members have spilled blood in order for them to be able to sleep peacefully in their beds at night, and to fight for their right to spill there brain cells wherever anyone is willing to listen to them. As said above, moral relativism has been a major factor in the downward spiral in the US, and, it has not only been caused by the communists.

            Some may be willing to further engage them, particularly Hermes, the countess of anti-americanism and brian B, however, they will never run out of deluded thinking, and they are very willing to tell us how wrong we all are. Personally, I’d like to see them banned as they are not of the same political mind that this site is structured for. They are no better than trolls.

          • gunnerbs
          • eburke

            to embrace the Founders you missed all the references they made to morality, a Supreme Being, a Creator, and the need to keep the people ‘moral’ as the means to stave off tyranny and oppression.

            Pathetic Moralism? Wow…just wow! And you talk about conservatives in the GOP not embracing inclusion while wrapping yourself in the mantle of the Framers.

            I’m speechless.

      • zroxx

        “… put a monetary price tag on every war.”

        Every military engagement costs the taxpaying American citizen. That fact doesn’t invalidate military action but it requires responsible and disciplined governance that can correctly surmise the potential, tangible ROI of whatever military engagement is being considered.

        A measurable (and positive) impact on the security of American citizens can be part of that tangible ROI. A return in the form of favorable trade arrangements for American companies can be a part of that. etc.

        “Good feelings” about helping foreigners build hospitals and so forth does not qualify as tangible ROI in my opinion. American citizens living in freedom have the opportunity and choice to use their own time and money to contribute to causes and organizations that they feel will help foreign citizens but not generate an actual tangible return for all Americans.

        You can argue which recent military engagements (and perhaps what specific aspects of those engagements) fit or don’t fit into the “positive ROI” category but I believe this is a more accurate way to describe how a person who is both pro American citizen and pro limited government would look to evaluate military action.

  • brian_b

    We also get involved Janis. We were a large part of the beginnings of the Tea Parties. They didn’t start with Sean Hannity. They started with RP supporters.

    If the GOP fielded more actual Conservatives I would be more inclined to vote that way.

    • Scope

      the original Ron Paul supporters were violent, nasty, uncivil and were there to do nothing more than to create unrest. The current Tea Parties are nothing like the guys that chased Hannity down. The current Tea Parties are not their to just intimidate, but, to promote peaceful messages. No comparison.

    • Scope

      the original Ron Paul supporters were violent, nasty, uncivil and were there to do nothing more than to create unrest. The current Tea Parties are nothing like the guys that chased Hannity down. The current Tea Parties are not their to just intimidate, but, to promote peaceful messages. No comparison.

      • brian_b

        To be clear, I am not defending RP however, I never said the current crop of Tea Partiers were RP supporters. I know a number of people who support RP that are very polite, civil, caring patriots. That they don’t carry water for the GOP is their major crime.

        • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

          and attempts to coopt the whole thing is transparent…..

          as I’ve shared Privately with someone….

          You’ve probably heard some of the complaints – That person or organization is just a sham and shills for Republicans. Which usually comes from Shills for attempting to expand the Libertarian Party (that has accomplished nothing, ever, anywhere) or those looking to create their own little thief-dom of yet another do-nothing organization or Third-Party. There will always be differing agendas, the question remains whether someone is going to continue to carry a grudge and muddle the MESSAGE because of the MESSENGER rather than work together when/where possible! I’ve heard it often, so-and-so won’t cooperate with whose-its Tax Protest because it’s so-and-so’s; and all the while Progressives keep moving their agenda forward while everyone else focuses on Personalities rather than purpose!

          ——— plus ———

          In any movement or group there are folks that are not fully disclosing their intent/purpose and looking to create their own little thief-dom (niche of Power and/or Money grab, directly or indirectly – notably several “single-issue” groups). Among the list of folks I consider in that “type” are the RINOs/CINOs (often as bad as Pavlov-Blue-Dogs) in the GOP that are Progressives and stab the GOP Platform (and Conservatives) in the back at every opportunity they feel they can get away with and still lie to get re-elected. As for Liberals, don’t think for a moment there aren’t any in the TEApeat movement working within to undermine it. Many Progressives WANT the Tea Party “phenom” become a Third Party BECAUSE it will ensure enough split-Conservative votes to continually elect Progressive/Liberal Democrats! This was rampant in the Reform Party movement and is happening again now within some Tea Party circles and 9/12 movements.

          ———— plus ———-

          Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of WORTHLESS Republicans that are NOT Conservative as they claim to be, and they all seem to be in the U.S.Senate (pathetically enough), but they ARE NOT representative of the majority of the GOP. They do NOT adhere to the GOP Platform (wonder when they last looked at it) as they don’t pay much attention to the U.S.Constitution (like Democrats). The Omnibus Bill was yet another example of FAILED REPUBLICANS (3 R’s give 3 weak D’s duplicity coverage voting FOR Omnibus spending, even the McCain-iac didn’t go there this time) Again, they are NOT representative of the GOP and give voice to the notion ‘there is no difference in the Parties’ – UNTRUE! There is little difference in PROGRESSIVES and there are a few in the GOP but we must work harder to ensure they are not in authority positions and over-ride the majority viewpoint (and GOP Platform) positions of maintaining REAL/TRUE Conservatism and anti-Progressive-ism. (How Alt-Party talk is RINOism: can one catch RINOvirus?). The GOP is the “Party of KNOW” which is why we say “NO” to Liberal Incremental-ism (Republicans must be the Party of NO [to Bigger Govt.] not the Party of SLOW[er Liberal Incremental-ism])!!!

        • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

          to doing something, I’d be happy to welcome additional “Libertarians” in the House (additional Ron Paul’s you all seem to be so darned concerned about). If you spent just 1/4 the effort you could all be GOP Delegates and Control some local Committees and help shape the Candidates that are on the House tickets!!!!

          You don’t… you won’t…. and many are more than happy to have their own little (do nothing) Money/Power mini-thief-doms rather than actually help shape debate/policy!!!

          • aesthete
          • gunnerbs

            The Libertarian Party seems to me to be content to be a party out of power. That way they can sit around holding thier collective breath like a child, and not ever have to go about the work of putting thier ideas to practical use by actually governing.

          • Scope

            and if you check out the Campaign for Liberty (Ron Paul non-profit site) you will see that their mission is to re-educate the electorate. You don’t have to be in office to do that. You just have to be good at agitating. I think that is why they have all come out in force here at Redstate. We all need to be re-educated.

          • jayburd

            The only hope for the Republican Party is for it to be taken over by Libertarians!

          • jayburd

            that Democrats spend money faster than Republicans. For awhile there the Republicans looked like they were catching up. How’s about this for a thread title-” A reminder to Republicans of what they used to stand for.” That is, if, in your denial, you’re not too busy bashing Libertarians.

  • avgamerican

    Our founders believed that Judeo Christian values were the foundation of law (Our rights come from God and no other). That’s not the thinking of this country anymore as the culture bares that out. There was a time when we could have honest debates about tax and spend (Jefferson vs Hamilton .But I won’t debate whether a man is a man, a woman a woman, and killing an unborn child is an abomination. This is the real debate.