Feinstein gives up on AWB

[VaniB.]

Don't kid yourself about Connie Rice. She isn't a female Alan Keys! She'd be a better choice then Dick Cheney (....anybody would be a better choice then Dick Cheney) but I do believe Connie Rice is a hired gun who will take the best paying job offer out there regardless of party affiliation! Anbody ever heard her opinion on our 2nd amendment rights. I haven't, and wouldn't be so confident about it.

I don't believe she is a true conservative, as she has held questionable professional relationships in the past concerning conservative principles. I can't remember what group it was in the past that she was affiliated with. Was it the liberal NAACP perhaps?

Rudy Guliani and Colon Powel are no friends of the 2nd amendment, but in polotics you do what you gotta do to win. Either one of these guys would get Bush reelected. Perhaps like Bush, their anti assault weapon stance would moderate if they ever became the party nominee in 4 years.

But now I'm dreaming..... This president doesn't have the smarts to replace old Dick H. Cheney. (Dick Haliburton Cheney) Imagine if we squeeze out a win in November? Then we're suppose to run Dick Cheney against Obama or Hillary in 2008? Oh geeess!!!!!!!

 

[treeprof]

Condi (short for Condoleeza), not Connie, Rice is very pro RKBA, and she has said so. She once spoke in an interview abt her father and uncle(s) having used guns to deter or repel Klan-types when she was a child, and how imp. firearms were for self defense.

Here's a Georgie Will column where her views on the 2nd amendment came up in a conversation.

she has held questionable professional relationships

Could you be more specific? Her biography doesn't list anything overtly suspect.

 

[2nd Amendment]

When the Libertarian Party actually tries to become a relevent force in politics then they might get more votes overall. As is, running some no-name for president every four years and making trite press releases doesn't cut it. A Third Party is going to have to start at the bottom, build a base, win local elections and grow itself up through the ranks to ever make any difference at all. But my views are probably pretty clear on that already...

 

[Boats]

Chances are if you look up loser in a thesaurus Libertarian might be an entry.

 

[Sam Adams]

A Third Party is going to have to start at the bottom, build a base, win local elections and grow itself up through the ranks to ever make any difference at all.

This bears repeating oh, about every 2-3 hours.

Those who advocate that the Libertarian (or Constitutional, or whatever minor) Party candidate for President should be elected need to buy a clue: no such candidate, even if worth over $1 billion and with a long history of effective executive experience, will ever get elected. Even if he does, HOW is such a person going to ever get any of the Party's agenda (i.e. dismantling the government, or at least its most onerous parts) passed into law if he's facing 500+ hostile members of the Republicrat Party in Congress?

People in general might also like to see how the principles of such a party work in practice on a state or local level before entrusting the entire power of the fed.gov to a person flying the same political banner.

My philosophy is to vote how you want to in the primaries, and then vote to stave off disaster in the general election. Working as hard as Hell prior to the primaries, to try to get your candidate on the ticket for November in a party that has at least a 40% chance of victory might also make some sense.

 

[Thumper]

I do believe Connie Rice is a hired gun who will take the best paying job offer out there regardless of party affiliation! Anbody ever heard her opinion on our 2nd amendment rights. I haven't, and wouldn't be so confident about it.

You might want to do a little research, then.

As noted above, Condi's one of our best friends.

It's hard to find a politician at the national level that will state "I am a 2nd Amendment absolutist."

 

[Ironbarr]

Sam...

Hear! Hear!

(But we know that many of us make our decision at the "point of sale" - the ballot itself.) Bush may be considered the lesser of two "evils" by many, but looking at the alternative, he is, IMHO, much lesser.

We must also look at the congressional make-up after the election. A one or two potential vote majority is really no majority at all unless all vote the "current" line.

Also, Bush, in his second (lameduck) term, with a supportive congress can change more than several things; with a non-supportive congress, he could be pretty well dead in the water.

Only "events" will tell what the second term will be, or in the case of Kerry, just how much he could really accomplish with a supportive - or not - congress, and of course... "events".

For me, it's Bush - others may find that their mileage varies.

-Andy

 

[Evil_Ed]

Boats said:

Chances are if you look up loser in a thesaurus Libertarian might be an entry.

That's just as bad as the Socialists inside the Democratic party saying that all Republicans are Nazi's/Fascists or the Authoritarians inside the Republican party saying that all Democrats are socialists. Neither the Republicans or Democrats are made up entirely or even mostly of such people so both statements are inflamatory and incorrect just as the statement you just made above. This is the high road, let's try and keep the arguments to the facts instead of slinging mud at each other. All the mud slinging does is get both sides dirty and agravated.


2nd Amendment said:

When the Libertarian Party actually tries to become a relevent force in politics then they might get more votes overall. As is, running some no-name for president every four years and making trite press releases doesn't cut it. A Third Party is going to have to start at the bottom, build a base, win local elections and grow itself up through the ranks to ever make any difference at all. But my views are probably pretty clear on that already...

The reason they run a presidential candidate is for publicity, it helps get the message out that there is an alternative to the mess going on in the other 2 parties. Look up the history of the Libertarian party, they have some surprising vote numbers through the years even getting an electoral college vote during one election. Another reason to run one is that maybe just maybe enough people will become disenchanted enough that they vote LP instead of Dem or Rep, stranger things have happened.
On the local level there are MANY LP members that hold offices from local schoolboard up to state reps. Need I point out also that Ron Paul though currently registered as a Republican (as am I so I can vote in Primary Elections) is effectively a Libertarian (was a member of the party, may still be a dues paying member despite his current Republican position...not certain where to look for that info). My local LP reps are running people for office all the time, one is running for city council right now. So the LP is active on MANY different levels, not just the presidential election. Do you realize how much work it takes and how many signatures you need to get a person on the presidential ballot? Most presidential elections since the party was founded have had the LP on a large number of state ballots.

Here is a quote from the LP home page:

The Libertarian Party ran 1,642 candidates in the 2002 elections, the largest slate of third-party candidates since before World War II. We contested 219 U.S. House seats, 21 U.S. Senate seats and ran 24 gubernatorial candidates. Our candidates for governor received 763,392 votes, almost twice as many as our previous best showing. We made history when our House candidates received over 1 million votes for the second time, a feat achieved previously only by the Democrats and Republicans.

So don't discount the LP and don't slam them for not working on a local level when they in fact ARE running on a local level during every election cycle.

Regards,

 

[The Real Mad Max]

Libertarian = 60s loving Hippy Party.

If it feels good - DO IT!

"Hey, I ain't hurting no one!"

"Make love, not war!"