Republicans, RINOS, Libertarians, and Constitution Party


PDA






Dan from MI
August 4, 2005, 08:09 PM
One of the biggest debates I've seen here and other gun boards and poltical boards is over republicans leaving to the libertarian or constitution party, with a ton of complaining over RINOS.

I'm not going to attack those here who are going to slam an individual. I am calling out those here who are saying that they are never going to vote Republican again. If someone like Ron Paul, John Hostettler, or Leon Drolet were on the ballot, are you going to snub them because they have an R by their name - mostly because of the policies of Mr Bush who will be gone in 3 years anyway??

Now I am not a "big government conservative", and to be frank, Bush was a lesser of two evils choice for me. That said, here's what has happened under Republican control with guns.

Positives - AWB sunset, gun lawsuits ban on the verge of passsing. 2nd Amendment viewed as individual right by justice dept, UN gun grabbers told to go to hell. That's a start, and something we can work with..

Negatives - Patriot Act, McCain/Feingold, trigger locks. - I don't like the third, but will pay that price for a gun lawsuits ban. The other two are inexcusable. The former was bipartisan bad and McCain/Feingold was mostly democrats, McCain, and Bush.

--------------------------------

Now the big question is HOW can we improve our situation? Some say third parties, but I have to differ there. The third parties suffer from three things.

1. A "can't win" reputation. In 2004, there was a pro-abortion and gun grabbing RINO running in the 7th District of Michigan. He squeaked past 5 conservatives to barely win the primary. The democrat was a weak candidate. This was the chance for a decent third party candidate to make noise. The constitution party candidate ran an actual campaign, but with little money. He finished with 3%, The Green had 1.3%, and Libertarian had 1%. The RINO had 58.37%, and Democrat(pro-2a) had 36.31% The good news is that the RINO may be primaried out in 06.

2. Lack of Money and campaign knowledge. The third parties rarely run local candidates to build name recognition and concentrate on presidential runs. The only Libertarian ads I've heard the last two elections are Badnarik and Harry Browne. (Only other ad I heard was Buchanan Reford 2000)

3. Debates and media name recognition. If I ever run for office, I'll be happy to debate a green, libertarian or constitution party candidate (anyone on the ballot) as I support free speech. I don't like the rules in presidential races on third parties, but what is, is what is, not what it ought to be. That said, how many candidates ignore third parties. How many media outlets ignore them.

------------------------------------------------------
That leaves the Republicans and the Democrats. One party tolerates gun owners. The other outwardly distains them outside of a few individuals like John Dingell.

So how do we make sure the pro-freedom republicans beat the RINOs and big government conservatives who aren't gun friendly? Two ways. Candidate Development and Primaries - and that starts now, not at the filing deadline. Now rules may be different in your state, but in Michigan, this is how things work. For the Republicans here, we need you to join us and be active. Chances are, there's already a significant gun owner base in the party. Keys:

1. Precinct Delegates.(at least in Michigan, may be different in your state) - This is the easiest "office" to be elected to. The filing deadline to run for office is in May of 2006. It does not cost any money, and no petitions are needed to get on the ballot for precinct delegate. I have run for this position twice and was unopposed each time. There are a certain number of opening for precinct delegates, and those with the most votes in the August primary win. Precinct delegates have a lot of power. They go to a county convention and select the at-large (1/2) executive committee members of the county party. They select the delegates to the state convention(I've been a delegate to all of them). At the state convention, they select the nominations for (state level) Secretary of State, Attorney General, and Supreme Court Justices. They also select the state party committee members and party chair. The latter is a very significant office for gun owners. This is an easy way to get involved.

2. PRIMARIES, especially open seats - Lower turnout and a strong GOTV effort is a big key.

--------------

Lastly, on to 2008. I see a lot of McCain or Rudy debates. We haven't even had the 2006 elections yet, and these two jokers are coronated to be the nominee since the media likes them? No, it doesn't work that way. After 2006, we have the straw polls, grass roots efforts, and momentum shifts. The race hasn't even started yet. I hope SC Governor Mark Sanford changes his mind and runs myself.

If you enjoyed reading about "Republicans, RINOS, Libertarians, and Constitution Party" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MrTuffPaws
August 4, 2005, 08:32 PM
Positives - AWB sunset, gun lawsuits ban on the verge of passsing. 2nd Amendment viewed as individual right by justice dept, UN gun grabbers told to go to hell. That's a start, and something we can work with..

The bolded statment no longer applies after Ashcroft left.

RooK
August 5, 2005, 12:48 AM
I voted Libertarian for President and Republican for everything else. If they stuck to the Constitution and did what they said (good things) I'd even vote for a Democrat. Unfortunately 99% for Democrats are idiots and the Republicans are being overrun by neocons. Vote for the person, not the party.

Justin
August 5, 2005, 12:55 AM
I have a really hard time retaining any interest in the Republicans when you have Rick Santorum saying things like:

One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right. The left has gone so far left and the right in some respects has gone so far right that they come around in the circle.

...

This whole idea of personal autonomy ó I donít think that most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. And they have this idea that people should be left alone to do what they want to do, that government should keep taxes down, keep regulation down, that we shouldnít get involved in the bedroom, that we shouldnít be involved in cultural issues, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world. And I think that most conservatives understand that individuals canít go it alone, that there is no such society that Iím aware of where weíve had radical individualism and it has succeeded as a culture.

NPR Rick Santorum interview (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4784905) (Originally posted at Buzz Machine (http://www.buzzmachine.com/index.php/2005/08/04/meeting-at-the-fringes/) and found via Reason Online (http://www.reason.com).)

If the majority of conservatives have no use for a belief in personal autonomy then I have no use for them. This, of course, doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for a pro-liberty Republican, but they seem to be going the way of the Ankylosaurus.

Incidentally, would anyone care to tell me the difference between a rugged individualist and a radical individualist?

Rebar
August 5, 2005, 01:37 AM
The current crop of third parties are jokes.

The biggest, the libertarians, have after 30 years only elected a tiny handful of state reps. Even that pathetic performance towers over the constitution and other parties.

No third party should be taken seriously, because they're not run by serious or competent people. A real party wouldn't run a no name nobody for president every four years, when they should be running state reps and senators, with the goal of gaining the majority in a state, then the govenorship, then maybe a presidential bid. Instead, they pick the nuttiest guy at the convention, run a doomed campaign, waste all that money and effort, then complain that no one takes them seriously. If a party can't get a majority in a state, then they shouldn't be included in a debate, they haven't earned the right.

In fact, the libertarian party has been losing a lot of members, they are considering lowering the yearly dues to zero to keep membership from dropping through the floor. The party has two kinds of members now, the loony hard-core, and republicans who think they're making a statement. Foolish.

What needs to be done, is to stop looking at the national republicans, and concentrate on the state republicans. Seek out and support conservative/libertarian state reps and senators, city councils, mayors. This is where the next generation of national republicans will come from, so make an effort to promote those that share your values.

beerslurpy
August 5, 2005, 01:48 AM
I think the major problem right now is that the polls are giving the republicans a poor showing on everything except the war on terror, so naturally all the republican radio talk show guys seem to do nothing but beat the terrorism drum.

Boom boom boom boom boom.

The evangelicals are tepidly furious about Frist proposing the use of in-vitro fertilized eggs to make stem cells, over which there is much sound and fury, signifying nothing. Gotta keep the natives dancing.

The gun rights crowd is mildly excited/annoyed at the new lawsuit protection/child safety lock law. Again, gotta keep the natives dancing so they dont get bored.

Meanwhile, al-queda is continuing to rack up a new high score playing GTA: Baghdad Andreas- the new game featuring all the violence that healthy 18 year old boys love. Unless they are in the Marines.

Boom boom boom boom boom.

Everyone is looking for a new issue. Besides keeping the constituencies eager, there is not really much for congress to do right now except appear palatable to voters. No one wants to be the first to do something that mobilizes some new constituency against them. Shrink the size of government? Only if the government employees in question cant vote.

The democrats are still beating their own drums, to the tune of "bodies from Iraq" and "Karl Rove is the devil." Again, the core constituencies are going through the motions of being excited, but even they are getting bored of the same old crap. Pretty much everyone is. Again, not a lot of risk takers on either side.

I personally think that everyone is waiting for bin laden to attack us again already. It will provide for excitement and allow the government to respond by filling some feeding troughs and maybe even maneuvering for advantage in the coming elections. Oooh the possibilities. Isnt our country being wonderfully run?

No_Brakes23
August 5, 2005, 03:33 AM
I am waitning for a DINO to come along.

A pro-2a "progressive" who really is.

But I am not holding my breath.

How did Jesse Ventura get elected to state leadership? There has to be something worth analyzing there, whether ya like the guy or not. He got elected.

Waitone
August 5, 2005, 09:43 AM
Social conditions haven't been right for a third party to succeed. We've had parties play around at the edges but they've not found the core issue around which disaffected voters will rally.

There is one issue out there both parties studiously avoid. There is one issue where the gap between the rulers and ruled is wide. There is one issue where the ruled are screaming for action and the rulers have fingers in the ears.

Illegal immigration is the flash point and may well illuminate corrolary issues.

Not all third parties fail. Republicans were a third party at one time and with one issue they came to power. Trouble is it took them 170+ years to wear out.

Bartholomew Roberts
August 5, 2005, 10:20 AM
The bolded statment no longer applies after Ashcroft left.

Actually, you are incorrect there. The new Attorney General is still supporting the Second Amendment as an individual right interpretation and has done nothing to change that interpretation.

Rebar
August 5, 2005, 10:49 AM
Social conditions haven't been right for a third party to succeed.
I disagree.

The libertarian message was a good one (except the open border policy). If they were more serious and less doctrinarian, they could very well have become a real factor in politics. They squandered their opportunity by not building solid local bases, which is not the fault of voters, but only due to the incompetency of the leadership.

Lone_Gunman
August 5, 2005, 11:12 AM
Until the Libertarian party drops drug legalization from their platform, they will never stand a chance. Then, they need to work on finding a candidate who will shave and brush his teeth. I think it is futile to vote for Libertarians at this point.

The problem is that although the Republicans are a little better than the Democrats on some issues, they have dropped a lot of the core conservative values. Now we see Republicans supporting larger government, larger welfare programs, bigger spending projects, and greater intrusiveness by the federal government in our lives. I don't think these points are arguable, and anyone who does not see that is, in my opinion, living with his head in his ass.

I naively believed that if the Republicans ever controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency all at the same time that we could really change the country and roll back some of the socialist agenda that has been forced on us over the past 30 yrs by Democrats. But it didnt happen, they just added to it.

Now we have McCain-Feingold, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Reform/Free Drugs for Old People, and the Patriot Act. These things outweigh the good we have gotten from the Republicans, such as the tax cut, expiration of AWB, etc.

Father Knows Best
August 5, 2005, 11:21 AM
I'm a libertarian (small "L") pragmatist. I believe in libertarian principles and vote for the Libertarian Party (LP) when I feel it is safe to do so. I will not cast a vote for an LP candidate, however, if by doing so I may help the "wrong" candidate win. For example, I live in Tennessee. In the last Presidential election, it was a foregone conclusion that Bush would win my state. Accordingly, I felt comfortable voting for the LP candidate for President (Badnarik). I knew he wouldn't win, but I also knew that Bush wouldn't lose Tennessee, and I hope that over time the Republican Party will see that it is losing people like me to the LP.

If Tennessee was actually in doubt, however, I would have voted for Bush. As much as I dislike the Republican Party, it is generally far better to have a Repub in the White House than a Democrat.

The Real Hawkeye
August 5, 2005, 12:25 PM
I'm not going to attack those here who are going to slam an individual. I am calling out those here who are saying that they are never going to vote Republican again. If someone like Ron Paul, John Hostettler, or Leon Drolet were on the ballot, are you going to snub them because they have an R by their name - mostly because of the policies of Mr Bush who will be gone in 3 years anyway??I'm with Ann Coulter. She says that she looks forward to the day when there are only two major national conventions, i.e., the Moderate Republican and the Conservative Republican. Considering the evolution of parties in US history, I don't think that is too far fetched. Until then, though, for the presidency, I am more likely than not voting US Tax Payer Party/Constitution Party or Libertarian from now on. If only these two parties could unit somewhat and agree on the same presidential candidate to support. Might help the cause if they both backed the same guy, but this would mean a little cooperation between them, which is not likely to happen.

geekWithA.45
August 5, 2005, 12:30 PM
Like many here, I'm a small l libertarian, and generally line up for libertarian principles as implemented by a minarchy.

I resigned the big L party when my analysis indicated that in addition to the implausibility of 3rd party success due to the dynamics of the vote, they simply weren't serious about getting to where most of us want to be.

If they were, they'd have a pretty clear and valid plan for getting from A to B, wouldn't be spinning their wheels on legalized pot, and wouldn't be cribbing plays from the DU on the WoT.

They've been around since 1972, have gained little traction, and have precious little to show for it other than retarding the growth of libertarianism within the GOP.

If they were really serious, they'd be configured to win, and they're not; they're configured to grandstand.

I hate to say it, but the Republic won't be saved by the likes of them.

Now, as to addressing the base question, "how do we improve the situation?" I'm sticking with my 3 prong plan:

1) Neutralize the danger to the Republic via electoral evisceration of the Democratic party until they purge their collectivoLeftists and reform themselves as something recognizably American.

2) Promote the growth and candidacy of pro-liberty candidates and policies within the GOP, censure the dark, creepy authoritarians, and do some outreach work with the religious right, to educate them to the notion that liberty, rather than direclty implementing a "christian agenda" is in their long term interests.

3) Send a salvage team over to the LP and other worthwhile 3rd parties to claim whatever's worth saving.

txgho1911
August 5, 2005, 12:33 PM
Part of the problem is in the lockstep process used in election.
A popular or aproval voting method or like some city council elections the instant runnoff method.
If everyone could vote for one candidate as a first choice and the oportunity to vote for another as a second choice then more better informed decisions could prevail. The skerrys and shrillarys would never get the vote. The primary could be for tradition and historical refrence in future years.
I know of several second choice candidates that would have made the cut above and beyond the party-line choices.

The Real Hawkeye
August 5, 2005, 12:45 PM
...do some outreach work with the religious right, to educate them to the notion that liberty, rather than direclty implementing a "Christian agenda" is in their long term interests.I keep hearing this kind of thing said about the so called "religious right." Would someone actually provide an example of a problematic part of their agenda. I am not a member of the "religious right." I am a libertarian leaning conservative, but I see nothing wrong with devout Christians making their presence known politically. Our system of government certainly has room for it. It was designed to give a great deal of local control so that local values could inform the kind of local government wanted by most local residents.

Federalism makes room for all kinds of different values. Under authentic Constitutional federalism, you can have some communities where, for example, abortion, drinking and pornography are outlawed, and other communities where public displays of the Ten Commandments are outlawed, and still other communities where all those things are legal. This is called diversity. There is room for this in the Constitution, and if government power is decentralized (a conservative ideal), no one is harmed by it.

It is only when government power is centralized that you start running into problems. When all power is exerted from the top you find that if you please interest X, interest Y is disenfranchised, and visa versa. Under real federalism, however, this problem is muted to near nonexistence, because you can discover which communities welcome your values, and which do not, and then you can move to those that do. Where do you move if the national government controls everything and it is enforcing a value system that you find reprehensible?

There is room for the so called "religious right" under our Constitution. I don't see them wanting to take control of the Federal Government to turn this country into a theocracy. They just don't want the Federal Government, via the Supreme Court, turning their local communities into places in which they don't want to raise their children. Is that such a danger to our liberties? Is there no room for decent communities under our Constitution?

Remember, it was the left that started this war on our religious traditions. The "religious right" is only a response to a very aggressive campaign designed to make no room for them in public life. Libertarians need to think about the history of this situation before they choose sides with the left against the "religious right." They are only asking for freedom to shape their local communities, which was taken away from them by the leftist SCOTUS. They are our allies in this war, not our enemies.

jefnvk
August 5, 2005, 02:32 PM
The third parties rarely run local candidates to build name recognition and concentrate on presidential runs. The only Libertarian ads I've heard the last two elections are Badnarik and Harry Browne. (Only other ad I heard was Buchanan Reford 2000)

And therein lies the problem. I think the libs would be much better suited to getting people in congress, and running for state govenors and legislatures, then to go for President. I think they have a chance at winning congress seats. I don't think they have a chance in the next few decades of winning the presidency.

Personally, I'd just as soon get rid of this whole political party thing. I think that was the biggest goof up that the FF allowed, was to allow for political parties.

As for the religious right, that is all crap. It is much easier to demonize a group of people with conflicting views with you, than to convince people that your views are the right ones.

antarti
August 5, 2005, 02:48 PM
As somebody who has been registered/eligible to vote for just about 2 decades, I have to say there is only 1 "cant win" scenario: keep voting D's and R's.

I left the Republicans recently (last month). I am not going back. I may or may not ever vote for another R. I certainly won't be contributing financially to another (Ron Paul for Pres excepted).

I remember bringing guns to school being just fine in High School. The high school "shooting club" conveined on the baseball diamond after school, kids brought shotguns and long guns on the bus, etc. and the shop teacher taught marksmanship. This was a school of 1500 kids, not some podunk "home on the prairie" outhouse with a school-marm.

I remember police that took you home so your parents could whup you when you made a "homemade firecracker" and scared hell out of somebody who called them. You know, back before you were a "terrorist bomb maker".

I remember being given a tour of the cockpit on a 747 (in-flight) when I was a little kid, and getting some cheesy plastic wings that the pilot told me were for "honorary pilots".... Now my kids are metal-detected and pocket-checked before they get on, and get to watch daddy and mommy get the "limited pat downs".

Some of the model rocketry stuff I have can not have engines bought anymore (they are somewhat large, too large we are told) without ATF notification of where/when the motor is delivered to the field (can't be sent to my home and stored), and the field and time of takeoff... nice explaining that to the kids that wanna see one of "daddy's old rockets" go up, aint it?

I remember walking into a gunstore and walking out 10 mins later with my first rifle, a Ruger 10/22 (when you could actually have a clean conscience buying Ruger) and all the receipt said was "One Ruger Rifle - $###.##"... I still have that receipt.

But this isn't just about an old geezers recollections from the 60's-80's, this is about reality. This is about heritage that predates all of us, and is being lost.

Believe you can change the elephants direction if you wish; I am disabused of that notion. I am no longer going to watch the country turn a "feminine shade of pink" and my rights dissapear while only deciding if it happens slowly (R) or quickly (D).

I leave that to you, since you have it all figured out. Just like I used to think I had. I told myself in 2000 that "we are going to be paying for those 8 Clinton years for the next 20". You seem to think that we won't be "paying" for Bush being pres in just 3 when he's gone. I believe you are wrong.

If we all end up in the same government mess line, waiting for our gruel, you won't have me to blame for it. Neither will my kids, who can't even be allowed grow up even the way I did lest they end up in a local or federal pen.

Sometimes that light at the end of the tunnel is another train, and all you get time for is to make things right before the inevitable. I wasted a lot of time getting there, but I am just now starting to make things right, finally.

BigG
August 5, 2005, 02:54 PM
I always picture spittle flecks flying from the lips of the avowed libertarians who post their self righteous appearing pap. Their writings read like those of 23 year-olds that got their first paycheck and realized the government was withholding from them without their permission. :eek:

I would move out of this country if I were as indignant as they claim to be. :uhoh: :what:


Out here.

griz
August 5, 2005, 03:18 PM
Excuse me if I get a little bristly here. We just picked candidates in our Virginia primary. Despite the fact that there were two republicans on the ticket, the party treated the whole thing as a formality. Kilgore, who did win, would not debate the other R candidate, saying the party was behind him and he was saving the debate for the main election. Now even if we excuse that, (his opponent got something like 16% which tells me he had more support than the party assumed) he now will only debate the Democrat candidate and refuses to debate the independent (formerly Republican) candidate that is already on the ballot.

I am not saying I will never vote Republican. But it gets under my skin when a party takes for granted large segments of their base and virtually anoints a candidate with the assumption that the voters have no other choice. So go on and talk about influencing the party with the primaries and how the two party system is a reality. Iíve decided that we get what we vote for, so I will no longer vote for the bigger government that both parties represent. I donít care which letter my candidate has by his or her name, but I do care about their stance on the issues. Donít think of it as me leaving the Republican party, think of it as the party leaving me behind.

jefnvk
August 5, 2005, 03:18 PM
I am no longer going to watch the country turn a "feminine shade of pink" and my rights dissapear while only deciding if it happens slowly (R) or quickly (D).

Unless you suddenly get millions and millions of people voting your way, or leave the country, I'm afraid you are going to.

geekWithA.45
August 5, 2005, 03:24 PM
Hawkeye:

For the most part, I agree with you. I totally agree that there's room for them, and that hysterical charges of "theocracy!" is not founded.

That being said, I'm not going to sign up for social enclaves, which is what happens when local control is allowed to trump the excercise of rights.

Where the rubber meets the road with the "Christian Agenda" is with the excercise of rights unpopular with said agenda, which is usually couched in theories that XYZ negatively impacts public morality, especially as it pertains to private behavior between consenting adults.

As a result, we have state legislatures that ban the sale of sex toys. Good luck trying to get a vibrator in (iirc) Alabama. We also arrive at bans against consensual sodomy (which, incidentally is often defined as anything other than male/female genital intercourse) being upheld.

We also run into 1st amendment issues when video and comic book store clerks are hauled in on _felony_ smut charges. I mean, come on, slapping a felony on an 18 year old minimum wage clerk because his store caries, in a cordoned off "adults only" area media deemed objectionable is NOT a righteous implementation of justice.


Authentic Federalism has at it's core 2 key factors:

1)The powers of government are limited and enumerated
2)The rights of the people are open ended and protected to the extent that they do not pose a direct hazard of harm to another.

Accordingly, the degree to which the rights of the people may be restricted is subject to BOTH tests, and not merely the local popular assertion that private oral sex somehow poses a danger to public morals and social stability.

Without those two factors, the whole thing quickly degenerates into a majoritarian excercise.


If we're ALL going to be free, Red America's going to have to learn to live with discreet sex toy shoppes potentially catering to homosexuals, and Blue America's going to have to learn to live without robbing from the rich to bribe their voter base with public goodies.

Big Bad Wolf
August 5, 2005, 08:31 PM
Let's look at the third parties in a simple form for a moment.


The Green Party = Neo-Nazi's.

The Libertarian Party = The party of legal drugs and wide open borders.

The Constitution Party = Good platform (almost like the GOP of old) but they are viewed as religious freaks.


I am sorry but these folks are going nowhere. :barf:

A lot of the LP and CP platforms are identical and they should combine into one party. If the CP can get the LP to drop the open borders and legalize drugs ideals and the LP can get the CP to stop using Jesus and God in every sentence they might just get somewhere.

beerslurpy
August 5, 2005, 09:03 PM
The War on Drugs is not going to go away as long as the harmful behaviors it controls are still alive and well. I'm not talking about drug use per se, I'm talking about a certain culture of lazyness and ignorance that drug use is merely a part of. Call it a "redneck" culture if you will, if only because the more common term for it is considered racist.

As much as I find the WoD offensive, I realize that it is performing an important social function that unfortunately I cannot suggest a more palatable alternative for. Therefore, I must conclude that the solution is to drop (at least in the near term) calls for an end to the drug war.

The LP also needs to drop the open borders talk EXCEPT as a part of emphasizing the costliness of the welfare state. Driving home the evils of big government is the answer, not making people fear for their jobs.

The constitution party wouldnt be so bad if it didnt feel like a high school bible club that was trying to sell the faith to me every time I read one of their pamphlets or press releases. They need to drop the hardcore religion and realize that most people are neither as pious nor as ideologically dedicated as them and that their approach reeks of theocratic totalitarianism. Politics are about making people feel welcome, not scared.

308win
August 5, 2005, 09:38 PM
A third party isn't going to have national success regardless of its message because the third parties don't have the organization needed to raise money, register and get out the vote, work the blocks & precints, distribute campaign literature, etc.

priv8ter
August 5, 2005, 09:48 PM
Excuse me if I get a little bristly here. We just picked candidates in our Virginia primary. Despite the fact that there were two republicans on the ticket, the party treated the whole thing as a formality. Kilgore, who did win, would not debate the other R candidate, saying the party was behind him and he was saving the debate for the main election

This has been happening here in Washington for the last few years. Instead of the public truely being given an opportunity to vote for folks in the Primary, that State Republican Party Chairman has been deciding who the State Republican party wants to endorse, and then not been giving any financial love to anyone with the gaul to run against 'The Chosen One'.

I have always thought what the Libertarian Party has to do was pick a big name...someone like Kurt Russel who is fairly well known, and run them for an office they have a legitimat shot at winning, Like a U.S. Rep, or the Senate...I mean, don't waste running him for President...get him and his Name in office to get some attention drawn to the Party.

But, what do I know...

greg

Barbara
August 5, 2005, 09:51 PM
Boy, we don't want to get me started again, eh, Dan? :)

Dan from MI
August 6, 2005, 01:55 AM
Boy, we don't want to get me started again, eh, Dan?

Now now, just because your congresscritter (Joe Schwarz) is a RINO who say that 2a supporters are "bubbas who like to strap on a 9mm" doesn't mean we all are like that. :D

Barbara
August 6, 2005, 11:23 PM
Well, RINO is a lot nicer word than I'd ever called him.

I remember once leaving a meeting he was at where he told a group of gun owners they didn't need ccw and he supported the AWB and calling someone to rant about what a big fat pompous pile of poo he was. Since that day, I avoid being in the same room with him if at all possible.

JohnBT
August 7, 2005, 12:08 AM
"this isn't just about an old geezers recollections from the 60's-80's,"

Old geezer? You? I'm older than you and my father is 28 years older than me. Heck, they even had color tv's in the '60s to watch the conventions on and you're making it sound like ancient history. The old guy next door to me is a geezer - he's 88. Speaking of history, I learned a lot about it from my grandfathers - one was born in 1890 and the other in 1891.

Actually, things are running pretty smoothly if you compare today to some of the rougher spots in U.S. history.

John

P.S. - re: "Excuse me if I get a little bristly here. We just picked candidates in our Virginia primary. Despite the fact that there were two republicans on the ticket, the party treated the whole thing as a formality."

Cause it is. Always was. Why are you surprised? Same with the Dems. Ever go to the old Shad Planking when it was run by the Byrd Machine?

Gordon Fink
August 7, 2005, 07:07 AM
Most people prefer authoritarian rule. Itís just that simple.

In the 21st century A.D., that leaves us with fascism or socialism, and since we fought that big war against the fascists Ö

~G. Fink

Barbara
August 7, 2005, 07:54 AM
Yup.

Or worse yet, they expect freedom for themselves, but aren't willing to extend it to others.

I find most people have no concept of what liberty even is or what it means, or why some people are willing to die to keep it.

Byron Quick
August 7, 2005, 08:01 AM
I don't know the ins and outs of all the state election laws. Here in Georgia, the LP has made a significant difference on both a state and national level. The LP prevented the re-election of Wyche Fowler to the Senate. In Georgia, you must have a majority of the vote to win. In a three way race, a plurality of the vote puts you into a run-off with number two. Wyche Fowler won a plurality in the general election. He lost to Paul Coverdell, who had gotten the LP candidate's endorsement, in the run-off. Senator Coverdell's death led to the appointment of Zell Miller to the Senate. The Democratic Party is still having nightmares about that.

Sistema1927
August 7, 2005, 07:25 PM
Stay in the GOP, but influence the party via the Republican Liberty Caucus (http://www.rlc.org/).

Makes more sense than putting all your effort into fringe groups and third parties that don't stand a chance of winning an election.

beerslurpy
August 7, 2005, 07:34 PM
The RLC is a joke. It just lists republicans as being "libertarian" and democrats as being "statist" or "authoritarian." It has little basis in fact. Ron Paul is about 30 standard deviations ahead of the rest of them, but you wouldnt know that from the ratings.

hifi
August 7, 2005, 07:36 PM
The bolded statment no longer applies after Ashcroft left.

Exactly. Bush appointed the grabber Gonzalez who "has gun control in his heart" and already we've seen a parts kit ban and several loopholes put into the lawsuit exemption bill, notably that the AG is exempt.

So the Ashcroft thing is another strike on the old "Bush is our happygunfriend" list of "accomplishments". :rolleyes:

hifi
August 7, 2005, 07:39 PM
Most people prefer authoritarian rule. Itís just that simple.

In the 21st century A.D., that leaves us with fascism or socialism, and since we fought that big war against the fascists Ö

~G. Fink

Exactly. When given the choice, most people will argue for their own enslavement. The whole political spectrum is a fraud. There is no left and right. There's either more government or less. Authoritarianism or Anarchy. Where you lie on that spectrum is where you are politically. Most people will say they are for less government involvement in their lives, but when we're talking about somebody else, then they're all for it.

The political spectrum has been set up so that it appears no matter which way you go, you ask for more government. Sometimes one side is for a little less extra government than the other. That's typical Washington logic though. Like is said about the deficit, "only in D.C. is a cut of an increase a cut." And the other scary thing about that is, we're no longer discussing the national debt every year, but the deficit. Is the media really that controlled? Would you like the dummocrat's big government solution or the republicrats big government solution?

If you enjoyed reading about "Republicans, RINOS, Libertarians, and Constitution Party" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!