where do I belong???


PDA






crewsr
August 9, 2005, 11:58 AM
If I have it right, a summery of the current situation:

The democrat party will only get smaller as the liberal wing (the baby boom 60’s generation) continue to push it to the left and squeeze out any Truman-like moderates and blue dog democrats. These voters will increase the size of the moderate GOPers.

The GOP will grow in size as a result; the Conservatives in the GOP will continue to feel like they are not being represented. Given the fact that they are the ones that win the elections for the GOP, will further the separation.

Is the GOP always going to be just the lesser of the two evils....always?

Examples of the above theories:

-Bush spends like a democrat just to steal issues away from the Dems, in turn acting like a Dem in this regard. Bush is pro-growth on the economy just so he can pay for his big spending bills. This seems to be the current GOP strategy. And the same strategy of my GOP governor of Minnesota.

-Look at the voters in Ohio. The Conservatives are mad and did not show up to vote. The GOP guy barely won. The Dem are claiming victory. And the Conservatives are wondering if she will be just another Moderate GOPer.

-The GOP is going too far with the police powers of the patriot act. Sad name for this act by the way. More Govt seems to be the answer when the people do not seem care to deal with the problem.

-I see Dems and GOPers give national Conceal and carry rights to LEO’s when “we the people” should have had it first. “We” should be the standard. Then limited powers to the police. This thread is not anti cop but please give me a break to all of the LEO’s that really think they have less power than I do. Why do the current parties treat the armed citizen as second rate? Why do they hold more confidence and security in the Govt than “We the people”? Is this generation that week?


So where can the pro-individual Rights, less Govt American turn too? I like the LP party flat form but their view on drugs seems to be where all their energy is at, and that’s not for me (or my young family). The only other options are limited and not fun. To stay with the GOP and fight with the conservative GOPers against the McCain, Bush moderates or join the Constitutional party.

I don’t mind “all that religion talk”. I need to be a better Christian and maybe that’s one of the reasons why I love reading our first generations writings. Its funny how some even in this forum have the shakes and DT’s about talk of a God fearing party and cry out Theocracy. Where is the theocracy link in the Constitutional Party? The push for the separation of church and state is now to the level of separation of religion from society. I’m spending all my time looking at all the real, in my face, social break down than looking for problems that are not even close to being realistic and are at this point just shrieking babble. But the Constitutional party is new, untested, week in organizing, and I just don’t know enough about this party yet.

The power and respect of individual rights seems to be lost by both parties. The Courts only cement this problem. I still believe “we the people” can do anything cheaper and better that the Federal Govt. Look at the success of the Minutemen at the borders. Look at the private space programs and their wonderful 1960’s Apollo-like energy. Both cheaper and better.

So where does a Reagan-Conservative belong??

If you enjoyed reading about "where do I belong???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Rebar
August 9, 2005, 12:08 PM
I see Dems and GOPers give national Conceal and carry rights to LEO’s when “we the people” should have had it first.
The GOP have made real strides on the state level for "shall-issue" laws, so it's incorrect to lump them in with the democrats, who have been fighting tooth and nail against any expansion of shall-issue laws.
So where can the pro-individual Rights, less Govt American turn too?
The republicans are the only real choice, the current crop of third parties are a joke. What you should consider, is getting involved in the local/state level republicans. This is where the next generation of national leaders come from, and where a lot of good solid conservative work is being done.

Zundfolge
August 9, 2005, 12:16 PM
www.rlc.org

The only hope we have is for liberty minded people to take back one of the parties ... the DNC is a complete loss so we need to focus our energies on the GOP.


If liberty minded folk can't retake the GOP then we're screwed.

wingman
August 9, 2005, 12:27 PM
So where does a Reagan-Conservative belong??

Good question as I feel the same, however my take on our two party
sytem is that wealthy corporations have basically bought them out, we,
meaning average Joe American really has no control on who wins what,
they put forth much effort to make us think we do.
Large business is selling America down the tubes taking money out
and not putting any back and sad fact is they don't care, short sighted and
greedy.
I don't see either party changing my only hope is a third
party for the people. Yeah, I know don't hold my breath.

mercedesrules
August 9, 2005, 01:28 PM
So where does a Reagan-Conservative belong??
With Reagan. :)

(Sowy - how could I resist?)

You are on a path to market anarchy/anarcho-capitalism. Why not just bypass all of the crap and go there directly (http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php#1)?

johnster999
August 9, 2005, 02:44 PM
Stick with the GOP and do you best to make a difference. The alternative parties just really don't offer much of an alternative. Write the letters, vote in the primaries, and let your views be known within the Republican party.

Good luck and God bless.

999

Gordon Fink
August 9, 2005, 02:55 PM
To maintain a long-term share of power, the Republicans have to get with the bread and circuses and forget about abortion. Otherwise, as they and the Democrats continue to impoverish the nation, more folks will join the “party of the poor.” Currently, both the Republicans and Democrats are working to increase the base constituency of the Democratic Party—even if successful imperial adventures keep the Republicans in power for a few more decades.

~G. Fink

Fletchette
August 9, 2005, 03:02 PM
I agree with most of your summary.

The Dems will probably split - old Baby Boomers and Greens go off on a Magic Carpet Ride trying to create Lennon's (or is that Lenin's) imaginary utopia. The rest of the Dems will be creating one focus group after another to try to figure out what they believe.

However, the GOP has problems of it's own. It too, may face a split. There is considerable tension between moderate RINOs and the conservative base. Most of the base feel they have been short-changed. A Pat Robertson type could possibly make a real stink in the primaries.

There are also sub-groups that vote GOP out of conveinence, gun-owners are a classic example. This group would probably switch en masse if a conservative Democrat faced a RINO in an election. I think the Rove-types know this and are doing as little as possible to keep us from bolting. Hence S397, letting AWB expire, etc, but no real progress towards repealling gun laws.

Libertarians, which I am philosopihically the closest to, seem hopeless. Badnarik was actually a reasonable canidate, eloquint and presentable, but without a presentable party to back him.

At this point, when someone asks what party I belong to, I respond "NRA" :D

jefnvk
August 9, 2005, 03:02 PM
I have a feeling in my lifetime, the two party systm will collapse. It would not suprise me if 30, 40, 50 years down the road, either the GOP or the Dems (or both) end up splitting into smaller groups. I could see a conservative party, a liberal party, a moderate party, and other smaller parties on the far extremes.

And if the two party system is broken, it will be because of a split. It would take nothing short of a miracle for any of the third parties to become serious contenders.

Gordon Fink
August 9, 2005, 03:17 PM
The Dems will probably split—old Baby Boomers and Greens go off on a Magic Carpet Ride trying to create Lennon’s (or is that Lenin’s) imaginary utopia.…

As an aside, I know a lot of people love John Lennon’s “Imagine” for the peaceful, harmonious world its wistful lyrics describe. I love the song, too … because its creepy lyrics give me an eerie view of a homogeneous world lacking human individuality.

~G. Fink :evil:

Mongo the Mutterer
August 9, 2005, 03:38 PM
I have a feeling in my lifetime, the two party systm will collapse. It would not suprise me if 30, 40, 50 years down the road, either the GOP or the Dems (or both) end up splitting into smaller groups.Nope, smaller groups can't get reelected. That is all politicians care about.

jefnvk
August 9, 2005, 03:58 PM
Nope, smaller groups can't get reelected. That is all politicians care about.

On the other hand, groups that are constantly engaged in fightin others in the party, to make policy, don't have a good shot either.

Fletchette
August 9, 2005, 04:05 PM
What happens, at least in the past, is that a party splinters into several smaller groups that recombine under a new name. Often both parties undergo this change at the same time.

Looking into my crystal ball, I can see the Dems imploding and leaving the GOP in power for a short while. Then the GOP splits (RINOs vs. base). The old GOP Base picks up elements from the splintered Dems and re-names itself. The GOP will now be the left-leaning party of the two (not counting all the small "third parties".

crewsr
August 9, 2005, 04:29 PM
Fletchette I pretty much agree with you that at this point. Although I am not a one-issue voter I look at whom the NRA likes very seriously.
The problem is, if I stay in the GOP to fight for the Conservative base, with writing and funding...all of which I have done in the past...I feel they will look the other way when the GOP wins again. I'm tried of "carrying the water" for this party when all they do is spend spend spend. the 9-11 response that my GOPers give me is not enough. I'm looking for a little just a little creativity like the minuteman patrols. The 2nd Amendment is a perfect homeland security tool but this is not being talked about within the parties. And I do not want other big Govt answers like more security cameras and more Federal agents looking at "we the people". Mr. President if you think we are at war then how about helping us educate the teens on what the Bill of Rights are and show them how to shoot. It will teach them discipline, respect and focus. I need a good grassroots place to throw my energy at.

Fletchette
August 9, 2005, 05:28 PM
Crewsr,

I understand where you are coming from. One possible solution that will stick a thorn in the side of GOP strategists is to form a society within the GOP. The "Log Cabin" Republicans are the source of much contention because they are in direct conflict with much of the GOP base (please note that I am not personally condoning nor attacking this group - that is a completely different issue than the Second Amendment).

I do think, however, that gun-owners could use much the same tactics. A GOP sub-group, the "Patrick Henry" Republicans that refuse to submit to any gun control, would be a strong deterrent to GOP compromising on the issue.

The Minutemen are in essence a sub-group.

One can argue that this is the start of the splintering of th GOP, but that is the implied threat.

wdlsguy
August 9, 2005, 05:52 PM
Write the letters, vote in the primaries, and let your views be known within the Republican party.

I write my letters, and vote in the Republican primary elections, but if a RINO wins a primary election, I do not reward him/her with my vote in the general election. I vote third party at that point.

Standing Wolf
August 9, 2005, 06:47 PM
So where does a Reagan-Conservative belong??

http://www.lp.org

ceetee
August 9, 2005, 09:25 PM
Speaking as a man of no party affiliation (and it says so, right on my voter's registration card), I'd like to know how Republicans can still align themselves with "Neo-Conservative" politicians that only pay lip-service (if that) to actual Conservative values. Reagan and both Bush's billed themselves as being for fiscal responsibility, smaller government, less government intrusion into our lives, more honesty, more integrity...

All failed to hold themselves to these ideals.

How can a Republican who actually does honor these values, still vote for people like these in good conscience? I'd actually like to see good, honest, hardworking Conservatives rise up and disown the rascals like Rove and Delay, and clean them out of the party. Then it might be a party I'd consider joining.

wingman
August 9, 2005, 09:42 PM
How can a Republican who actually does honor these values, still vote for people like these in good conscience? I'd actually like to see good, honest, hardworking Conservatives rise up and disown the rascals like Rove and Delay, and clean them out of the party. Then it might be a party I'd consider joining.


Long time republican voter but I agree with you, I found it very tough to
vote last election for sure we need some changes, too bad it comes down
to "who can do the least harm" vote.

Rebar
August 9, 2005, 10:49 PM
How can a Republican who actually does honor these values, still vote for people like these in good conscience?
Because something is better than nothing.

Because it's better to have a majority in both houses, even if there's some neo-cons, then to be ideologically pure, but in the minority. In the minority - we get nothing, no good judges, no liability reform, no AWB expiration. Nothing.

cracked butt
August 9, 2005, 10:56 PM
old Baby Boomers and Greens go off on a Magic Carpet Ride trying to create Lennon's (or is that Lenin's) imaginary utopia

That is the best line I read all day. I always thought that it was more than a coincidence that Lennon sounds exactly like Lenin. LOL.

Fletchette
August 9, 2005, 11:30 PM
I'd like to know how Republicans can still align themselves with "Neo-Conservative" politicians that only pay lip-service (if that) to actual Conservative values.

With great difficulty and a box of antacids. Before the last election AR15.com had a poll that went somthing like this:

When you go to the polls what will you do?

a) Throw your vote away on Badnarik but be able to sleep at night

b) Hold you nose and vote for Bush

c) Vote for Kerry to kick start the coming revolution!

Gifted
August 10, 2005, 12:33 AM
The lesser of two evils is still evil.

I might vote mainstream in the Federal elections coming up. But in local elections, I'm Libertarian, unless someone is looking very promising. Focus on the big change in the local arena. If you have the support of the local and state .govs, the feds can do less, becuase it'll be just them trying to mess things up.

stevelyn
August 10, 2005, 01:26 AM
I find it AMAZING and completely devoid of logic that most folks here notice the two-peas-in-a-pod party no longer represents them, YET they still advocate voting for one of the offending parties. :rolleyes:

How many times are you gonna get kicked in the head by the business-as-usual parties before you learn and look to a real solution? :fire:

The Libertarians or any other pro-rights third party isn't going to win if you don't leave your comfort zone and vote for them. :banghead:

Who cares what someone smokes in the privacy of their own home?? I don't. I think the War on (some) Drugs is wrong, and profit driven for both sides. The LP also seems to think so.

If the policy fails, just keep doing it until we get a different result.......yeah that'll work. :cuss:

Rebar
August 10, 2005, 02:00 AM
I find it AMAZING and completely devoid of logic that most folks here notice the two-peas-in-a-pod party no longer represents them, YET they still advocate voting for one of the offending parties.
I don't accept your premise. There are real and, for gun owners, very consequential differences between the republicans and democrats.
The Libertarians or any other pro-rights third party isn't going to win if you don't leave your comfort zone and vote for them.
It has nothing to do with a "comfort zone". It's up to them to run good candidates and good campaigns and earn our votes, not for us to validate their incompetence and stupid strategies.

Face it, the libertarians have had 30 years to make an impact, and in all that time they've only gotten a tiny handful of state rep seats, and not even one state senator. Most of the serious people left long ago, all that's left are the hard-core loonys, and they aren't going to be the ones to pull the party into something that can win anything important.

A libertarian vote is a democratic vote, a democratic vote is a vote to take your guns. I know how I'm voting.

dzimmerm
August 10, 2005, 02:17 AM
As goes the children of the nation, so goes the nation.

dzimmerm

cracked butt
August 10, 2005, 03:04 AM
The only 3rd party candidate that even had a smidgen of a chance in recent history was Ross Perot, and we all know what that got us. :banghead:

Flyboy
August 10, 2005, 12:30 PM
Badnarik was actually a reasonable canidate, eloquint and presentable, but without a presentable party to back him.
Meh. I took his class on the Constitution, attended a Libertarian Q&A he hosted, and had dinner and after-hours debate with him. To say that he's abrasive would be putting it mildly. He is a firm believer in his positions--which I can respect--but he could have exercised a little more tact, particularly when preaching to those whom he wished to convert. He also had (has) some errors in his arguments; read his book Good to be King and you'll learn a lot, but the interesting bits are, in some cases, ill-considered or downright wrong*.

As for the party, yeah, we're pretty incompetent. At the Q&A, Badnarik mentioned that, and said one of our big problems is that we argue internally about everything (to which a good friend replied "Not everything!," titillating the crowd). He's right--we do have a lot of inconsistencies, mostly because Libertarianism is more of a philosophy of thought than a platform. There's a lot of room for disagreement, and being the strong-willed critters that we are, we disagree a lot. In fact, I've seen cases where we disagree internally more than the Republicans and Democrats do with each other. That's probably our biggest problem--we can't run a competent campaign because we won't compromise on our positions. Such compromise would be fundamentally at odds with the basic philosophy.

Bottom line is that George Washington was right: political parties were a bad idea. Elect people, not parties.


* I have a couple of copies of the book. If your library doesn't have it, and you want to read it, send me a PM and I'll loan it to you. I'll even pay postage one-way.

ceetee
August 10, 2005, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Rebar:
Because it's better to have a majority in both houses, even if there's some neo-cons, then to be ideologically pure, but in the minority. In the minority - we get nothing, no good judges, no liability reform, no AWB expiration. Nothing.

So you sell out your ideals, and your morals, for the sake of power. Then, when you finally do have the power, you only think you do, because you now have to toady up to those bloodthirsty few who really are in control. Yay. Sounds kinda like being the hooker that has to service the sheriff...


It's up to them to run good candidates and good campaigns and earn our votes, not for us to validate their incompetence and stupid strategies.

+1... Spot on. But whaddya do when all choices are equally vile? Move to Canada? March in the streets? Case in point: Bush v. Kerry... To me, Bush is doing more to harm the nation that any other President ever. In my mind, even though Kerry was far from ideal, I felt he couldn't be any worse than Bush. As far as the Second Amendment goes, I knew that it was in no danger from a Democrat President, as long as a Republican Congress gave us a proper balance.

With no checks on power, though, there's nothing to stop the rogues from literally running away with the Treasury. Which we see happening right before our eyes.

GunGoBoom
August 10, 2005, 06:00 PM
Is the GOP always going to be just the lesser of the two evils....always?

Of course - ANY party in a 2-party-oligarchy system is going to be a coalition of incongruent philosophies - and thus have some 'evilness' to it, regardless of your views. The only way to go is to crush this 2-party stranglehold, and create a system that allows 3rd (& 4th & 5th) parties to survive and thrive. Then you'll have enough diversity of the parties to create one that truly makes sense all the way around, like the Constitution Party.

Rebar
August 10, 2005, 07:43 PM
So you sell out your ideals, and your morals, for the sake of power.
There's a big difference between compromising and selling out. Need I remind that when the republicans didn't compromise, they were the minority party for 38 years? And those years were very dark indeed for gun owners and the RKBA. Now that the "neocons" have managed to get the republicans into the majority, things are looking a whole lot better, especially on the state level. That's not selling out, that's smart politics.
But whaddya do when all choices are equally vile?
I disagree, I find the democrats much more vile then the republicans. Not that I wouldn't like if the GOP were more conservative/libertarian (a lot more actually), but let's face it - the democrats have become hard-leftists, especially the leadership. And completely anti-RKBA. Hillary will be their nominee, need I say more?

I think it'd be a lot easier and effective to steer the republicans more towards conservative/libertarian, then to pin false hopes on 3rd parties who have a hard time getting a dog-catcher elected.

Flyboy
August 10, 2005, 08:24 PM
There's a big difference between compromising and selling out.
And the Republicans currently wielding power (read: Bush and Co.) have definitely sold out.

The Republican Party is supposed to stand for limited government. Bush and Co. have presided over four of the five largest spending increases in the history of the country. Know why he's not five-for-five? He hasn't finished his fifth year yet. I promise you, he will. This year's $286.4 billion transportation bill contains 6,371 congressional "earmarks." That's a fifty-fold increase over the number President Reagan rejected. Don Young, the bill's champion, even managed to drop $231 million on a bridge to be named after himself, and even had the hubris to work his wife's name into the bill title. Guess his party affiliation.

In the past five years, how many times has President Bush used his veto power? Here's a hint: zero. President Bush has not vetoed a single bill: not a spending bill, not an expansion-of-powers bill, not even the bill he said upfront he thought was unconstitutional.

Less government intrusion, and citizens' rights? Let's talk about "administrative subpoenas," shall we? The FBI can issue itself a subpoena, and under the original rules, you can't even talk to your lawyer about it (the courts struck that provision--now you can talk to your lawyer but nobody else). Judges? Separation of powers? What are you, a terrorist? Guess who promulgated those rules.
things are looking a whole lot better, especially on the state level.That would be why my state (Oklahoma) now makes me sign for Sudafed, right? Not that it really matters, the Feds are exercising power in any realm it can, stripping to the bone any remaining trace of "the great experiment." Not too long ago, the DEA busted, and the Feds prosecuted, a doctor specializing in chronic pain medication for giving patients "too much medication." Never mind that the patients weren't responding to lesser doses--the great, glorious Administration, with its political hacks, knows more about medicine than, you know, a mere doctor. The Republicans' only saving grace as of late is that their stance on gun rights (well, privileges, in every state but Alaska) is better than the Democrats', but that only counts if you intend to use those rights to win back the others. I'm not there yet, and I don't think anybody here is either.

I still think the party's platform is superior to the Democrats, but face it--the current power structure doesn't recognize the platform any more than it recognizes the Constitution. You've been sold out, and they've conned you into thinking it's good for you.

North Texan
August 10, 2005, 08:42 PM
I find it AMAZING and completely devoid of logic that most folks here notice the two-peas-in-a-pod party no longer represents them, YET they still advocate voting for one of the offending parties.

How many times are you gonna get kicked in the head by the business-as-usual parties before you learn and look to a real solution?

The Libertarians or any other pro-rights third party isn't going to win if you don't leave your comfort zone and vote for them.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

I might vote mainstream in the Federal elections coming up. But in local elections, I'm Libertarian, unless someone is looking very promising. Focus on the big change in the local arena. If you have the support of the local and state .govs, the feds can do less, becuase it'll be just them trying to mess things up.

Good points. I couldn't agree more.

ceetee
August 10, 2005, 09:00 PM
There's a big difference between compromising and selling out.

Okay. How many Members of Congress "compromised" by signing The PATRIOT Act when they didn't even know what was in it? And how many "sold out"?

How many "compromised" by signing the recent Omnibus Appropriations Bill, and how many "sold out"?

Pick any contentious topic: Condy for Secretary of State, Roberts for SCOTUS, Bolton for UN, Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Saudi princes mass exodus after 9-11, whatever did become of Osama, anyway...

How many Members of Congress "compromised", and how many "sold out"?

Rebar
August 10, 2005, 09:27 PM
How many Members of Congress "compromised", and how many "sold out"?
You're assuming that a democratic president and/or democratic majority wouldn't have done the same, or more likely worse. As well as extend and make permanent the AWB, let gun manufacturers get sued into bankrupcy, the list goes on.

You sound like there was an actual choice to prevent your litany of woe. There wasn't, and won't be next election either. You might think Bush sucks, but he's in every way better than a Gore or Kerry.

Chrontius
August 11, 2005, 02:52 AM
Okay. How many Members of Congress "compromised" by signing The PATRIOT Act when they didn't even know what was in it? And how many "sold out"?

Most of them stupided out by signing off on something they never read. :barf:

On the other hand, the Party of Halliburton scares me a bit more than the alternatives right now. It might be the amount of cyberpunk fiction I consume, but I am very leery of governmental ties to large corporations.

ceetee
August 11, 2005, 05:14 PM
You're assuming that a democratic president and/or democratic majority wouldn't have done the same, or more likely worse.


No, I'm not. I'm assuming that most of the men and women we pay to represent us are crookeder than a dog's hind leg. It's high time they get punished.

No matter whether your representatives are Republicans or Democrats, if they voted to give away cash, if they voted for torture, if they voted for the AWB... if they voted for anything at all that's un-Constitutional, or against the best interests of the country, VOTE 'EM OUT!

Replace all the smug self-assure thieves with spanky-new freshmen that have no ties (yet) to Industry or Big Business. Let them know we're watching, and we don't give a whoop if they are in our party, if they vote against us, they'll be gone!

Fletchette
August 11, 2005, 05:19 PM
Most of them stupided out by signing off on something they never read

Congress hardly ever reads bills any more. I would support an Amendment limiting all bills to a letter-count equivalent to 5 pages, in conjunction with criminal charges for anyone who voted for a law ultimately decided by the Supreme Court to be unConstitutional. Then maybe Congress just might take a look at what they are ultimately passing on us 'little people'.

Bartholomew Roberts
August 11, 2005, 06:00 PM
That's probably our biggest problem--we can't run a competent campaign because we won't compromise on our positions. Such compromise would be fundamentally at odds with the basic philosophy.

A succinct statement of why the Libertarian party has gone nowhere for the past thirty years and has no prospects for going anywhere in the future.

Our political system is built on compromise. The more ideologically pure you demand your party be, the smaller the membership of that party is going to be. The more you are willing to compromise your goals, the more you can build up a large base of support.

DRZinn
August 13, 2005, 10:14 AM
Pick any contentious topic: Condy for Secretary of State, Roberts for SCOTUS, Bolton for UN, Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Saudi princes mass exodus after 9-11, whatever did become of Osama, anyway..."Contentious topic," or Democratic talking point?

If you enjoyed reading about "where do I belong???" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!