It's Time For A Revolution within the GOP

Status
Not open for further replies.
Now Bush has Sandra Day O'Connor's seat to fill. For those conservatives confident that Bush won't betray them, let's review Bush's other ideas about what constitutes a good Republican.

In 2002, Bush backed liberal Richard Riordan in the Republican gubernatorial primary in California against conservative Bill Simon. This triggered a series of events that culminated in Arnold Schwarzenegger becoming the governor of California. But I don't think even liberals would claim Karl Rove had a plan for California voters to elect Democrat Gray Davis, erupt in a rage at him, and demand a recall election in which a famous Hollywood actor would enter the race and beat the sitting governor.

In 2004, Bush backed liberal Republican Arlen Specter over conservative Pat Toomey in the Republican Senate primary in Pennsylvania. Bush still lost Pennsylvania and, worst of all, Specter won. So that worked out well.

In 2004, Bush backed Mel Martinez for the open Senate seat in Florida and asked the magnificent Katherine Harris not to run against him, so she graciously bowed out. Martinez has since called on Bush to shut down Guantanamo. What's Spanish for "buyer's remorse"?


This year, rumors have it that Bush is again discouraging the magnificent Harris not to run for the Senate. Here's hoping she ignores him. How much would Bush's support be worth to Harris at this point anyway? If Bush really wants to keep Katherine Harris out of the U.S. Senate, maybe he should just endorse her.

It's not like Bush owes Harris or anything. If Harris were as pathetic as the typical Republican supported by Bush, she would have defied the law during the 2000 election crisis and proclaimed Gore the winner just to get the media to love her. Gore would be president now, and Harris would have her own show on MSNBC. I'd be storing away all my summer burkas and, accompanied by a male relative, taking my winter burkas to the dry cleaners to be freshened up.

Also this year, Bush is backing developmentally disabled Lincoln Chafee over the only Republican in the race, Stephen Laffey, Harvard MBA and mayor of Cranston, R.I. Chafee opposes Bush on taxes, Iraq, abortion and gay marriage. This man is literally too stupid to know he's a Democrat. If Chafee hadn't inherited hundreds of millions of dollars, he would be living in a shack tending weeds. In the last election, Chafee famously refused to vote for Bush, instead writing in Bush's father.

What is Bush getting out of this again? Is this the masterstroke of that Machiavellian genius Karl Rove?

Karl Rove is Bob Shrum with a good cause. (Shrum has run eight presidential campaigns; number won: 0, number lost: 8.) Bush calls Rove the "architect" of his 2004 victory. In 2004, America was at war and the Democrats ran a gigolo to be commander in chief. The nation hasn't changed so much since Reagan was president that the last election should have even been close.

Whenever the nation is threatened by external enemies, the only way Democrats can win a presidential election is with another Watergate. And yet Bush nearly lost the last election. He would have lost, but for the Swiftboat Veterans – also dissed by Bush.

The "architect" of victory was nearly the architect of Bush's defeat when he advised Bush to come out for gay civil unions one week before the election. In terms of generating enthusiasm, this was the campaign equivalent of a teacher assigning homework late on a Friday afternoon. Judging by the results of more than a dozen elections where gay marriage was on the ballot last year, gay marriage is about as popular in this country as a day celebrating Hitler's birthday would be. (It is even less popular than the idea of John Kerry as commander in chief in wartime!)

If Ronald Reagan were running today, Rove would have Bush endorse Reagan's opponent. Establishment Republicans all pretend to have seen Reagan's genius at the time, but that's a crock. They wanted to dump Reagan in favor of "electable" Gerald Ford and "electable" George Herbert Walker Bush.

Newsweek reported in 1976 that Republican "party loyalists" thought Reagan would produce "a Goldwater-style debacle." This is why they nominated well-known charismatic vote magnet Jerry Ford instead.

Again in 1980, a majority of Republican committeemen told U.S. News and World Report that future one-termer George "Read My Lips" Bush was more "electable" than Reagan.

The secret to Reagan's greatness was he didn't need a bunch of high-priced Bob Shrums to tell him what Americans thought. He knew because of his work with General Electric, touring the country and meeting real Americans. Two months a year for eight years, Reagan would give up to 25 speeches a day at G.E. plants – a "marination in middle America," as one G.E. man put it. Reagan himself said, "I always thought Hollywood had the wrong idea of the average American, and the G.E. tours proved I was right."

Because of these tours, Reagan knew – as he calmly told fretful advisers after the Grenada invasion – "You can always trust Americans." The G.E. tours completely immunized Reagan from the counsel of people like Karl Rove, who think the average American is a big-business man who just wants his taxes cut and doesn't care about honor, country, marriage or the unborn.

Reagan knew that this is a great country. If only today's Republicans would believe it.

Sorry for the length, this is Ann Coulters latest column, sums up what most regular GOP'rs are feeling.

There better be a home run on the next SC apointments or the GOP is toast.
 
I think Conservatives and libertarians should abandon the Republican Party. It is too much in the hands of the establishment internationalists to salvage. We need to form a new party, even if we lose for years to come. So long as our leaving will cause the destruction of the Republican Party, we will eventually win. The Republican Party was ruined by the influx of neocons.

Eight years ago, nobody whould even know what the hell a "neocon" was and now I am being told they run the Republican party despite not representing a majority of that party's base... if that is true we should be looking at how they achieved this marvelous task rather than trying to break away and form yet another third party that will go nowhere.

It's time for the CONSTITUTION PARTY to take hold!

Yeah; because when you are having no success with Libertarian ideas and a no-compromise approach to politics, the key is to narrow your potential base and adopt an even harder line against compromise.
 
While Neocon is a newish term, the mindset certainly isn't. Just look at the policies of Henry Kissinger, and much of what has been written by Bill Krystol of The Weekly Standard, who evidently reflects much of the political philosophy espoused by his father.
 
Neoconservatives tend to come from a background of supporting traditionally left wing domestic policies with regard to social spending, regulation, and other things done in the name of "The Common Good" while being much more hawkish about foreign policy.
 
Coulter

I scrubbed that hack when she suggested McVey shoud have parked the truck in front of the NY Times. Even is jest, an unwise statement.

Take Care
 
Can anyone tell me the difference between an evil neocon and the old-style Rockefeller republican?
A Rock Rep is essentially a northeastern country club liberal, rather than a common man's liberal. A neocon is essentially an internationalist, though it is true that many Rock Reps were also internationalists, which sort of blurs the distinction. Rock Reps were also, however, many of them, pro-Soviet, which, as will be explained below, sharply distinguishes them from neocons.

Originally, the neocons were Trotskyites who hated Soviet style Communism and therefore joined the only American party which opposed the expansion of Soviet style Communism. Today, they have little concern for American tradition or the Constitution. In truth, they never did. Their wet dream is a one world government where they will be empowered to force, with the might of the American Military, their idea of a socialist (Trotskyite) paradise on the rest of the world. The only sense in which they were conservative during the Cold War was that they opposed Soviet expansion. Today, that is a moot point, so their main emphasis is back to Trotskyite one-worldism.
 
Last edited:
A NeoCon

Flys the BinLadin family out while air space is closed to the rest of us. Internationalist? Just look toward the White House..or straight over head..flying toward Crawford.

Take Care
 
the libertarian party is weak. the general public's view of them is a bunch of hippies that just want to smoke drugs and live in borderline anarchy. I hold mostly libertarian views, but I do not agree with making things such as cocaine legal etc.

badnarik was the presidential candidate last time around... to me he comes off as a meager mouse of a man, lacking confidence.

the libertarian party is poor, I remember them trying to fundraise $50k for a newspaper full page article. 50 grand! I don't think they even came up with it. the dems and repubs could raise that with a tiny cocktail party.

that being said, I refuse to partake in the 2 party system and therefore I vote libertarian. I have no expectations to see one take office anytime soon, but I vote with a clear conscience and don't ponder "the lesser of two evils" issue.

and yes I live in NH and support the free state project, but I have lived here most of my life... long before I even had an inkling of understanding regarding politics.
 
If the paleo-cons who inhabit the republican (mostly) and constitution parties and the libertarians who inhabit the republican (mostly) and libertarian parties could put their differences aside and make a single party, they would probably be fairly disruptive.

However, the pricks who currently make up the neo-con wing of the republican party will just fade out and be replaced with their counterparts in the democratic party. The only way to exclude them (and their agenda) is to win with a party that espouses small government.

To do this we have to kill off the programs which follow the old "govt benefit as a cover for wealth redistribution" formula. We can do this by making people have a cultural aversion to freeloading, or by poisoining the programs and making them into grotesque political and financial failures. Small government will only come about when we can convince the people to vote for it.
 
Evolutionary Idea, Slurpy

'Cause it's going to take a looong time. But, you're right. Tedious and frustrating these times.

Take Care
 
Folks, it's not about third parties, it's about safe havens. We're going to need to bolster states' rights because we are going to need semi-autonomous or fully autonomous regions to protect what's left of "Old America." Maybe I'm too pessimistic but I don't see a majority of Americans in this day and age, after forty-plus years of welfareism, backing the original vision of the Founders. Everyone talks about "uniting" the country. Yeah, makes sense for national defense but there is no longer the grand consensus for our core values that we need. "Unite" and we will see compromises that strip away the last vestiges of our radical civil liberties.

What good is a third or fourth party if in the end, de facto, you are still under the sway of a benign socialist dictatorship? And we may only be three years from that.


I agree.

www.freestatewyoming.org
 
I don't know, it seems to me that the current program of massive government spending on things it has no business funding AND with no corresponding increase in tax revenue is likely to get us to small government faster than any other path.

The transition is likely to be pretty abrupt though...
 
libertarians and drugs

Until the Libertarians drop drug legalization from their platform, they will go no where. You can scream about how wrong the War on Drugs is, and that the government shouldn't be involved in keeping people from hurting themselves with drugs, and to some extent I would agree. But for over 50 yrs, the government has actively pursued an anti-drug agenda, and Americans are so accustomed to this that nothing is going to change any time soon. Talking about drug legalization makes most Americans think you are crazy.

It's funny because I've heard pro-drug libertarians make essentialy the same argument as you, only they criticize the LP for wanting to eliminate gun control. The thing is you have to remember that probably just as many Americans think its crazy to have 'assault weapons' legal as those who think its crazy to have 'drugs' legal. So should the LP drop or compromise its pro gun stance? After all Americans have become accumstomed to more and more gun control laws over the past 50 years.

If the libertarians compromised on drugs they would probably lose a lot of their base without really benefiting since the majority of americans would still see them as 'crazy' on the issue of guns, or border control, or the military,...
 
THe whole point of libertarianism is that people should be held responsible for themselves, and they have the ability to choose what they do. Whether that be the self destruction of drugs or the noble cause of defending oneself and their families with firearms.

Libertarians are for LIBERTY... That means the government doesn't tell them what they can and cannot do...

It is really sad to see so many people who champion "liberty" yet want to keep alive a drug war that has squashed liberty in the US.

If they ever come down off their moral high horse, they may understand what liberty really means... It means that you have the right to be stupid, as long as you don't injure someone else in the process.
 
and for those that keep telling me about the www.rlc.org.....why would I do that.....I left the GOP because as a reagen fiscal conservative I was already being treated as a nonfactor in the "big tent". Being ignored in one small group of the GOP and move to be ingorned in another is not my style. sorry. The party as a whole either believes in less Govt or it doesnt!!!
 
It is really sad to see so many people who champion "liberty" yet want to keep alive a drug war that has squashed liberty in the US.
Put me in that camp, but I just don't see it your way. I consider myself a "Thinking Libertarian" meaning I take a full view of human nature in formulating my ideals of lindividual liberty.

That said, as much as I question the advisability of the so-called war on drugs, the option of legalizing drugs is not realistic. Why? Because as much as I find it abhorent to control people via government edict down to the level of controlling what is put into one's body, the reality of the situation is there are profound social costs with doing so. More than likely costs would be higher than what we experience with the WOD. Sure we can legalize drugs 'til the cows come home. Then what. In an ideal world divorced from reality we can say, "Hey, we legalize drugs and you are on your own. You abuse them, you pay the personal cost. I don't care if you end up in a gutter, dead. You did it to yourself. You were free to choose and you chose wrong. Stupidity should be painful. It was stupid for you to do drugs and you lost. Toooo Bad."

That's an idealized view. The reality of the situation is we live in a world just crawling with blissninnies. The control lots of money and unfortunately infest government. So as much as I love the ideal of making people pay the personal costs for their stupid decisions, reality says the carpet of blissninnies in our society will make certain that I pay the price for someone else's stupidity.

Until we can defeat blissninnies at the polls and defund their sources of money, dreams of drug legalization is just that, a dream divorced from the reality of the world in which we all live.
 
The Libertarian Party is to politics as masturbation is to sexual reproduction.

Both may be fun to play around with and give some sense of satisfaction, but you are guaranteed nothing will come to fruition from either.

I voted Libertarian for president in 92, 96, & 00. I couldn't bring myself to vote for the LP schmoe in 2004, despite agrreeing with a whole lot in the LP platform.

There are several small-"l" libertarians in elective office today, Ron Paul & Pete Sessions among them. Both are Republicans elected from Texas. Both show that you can work within that party to elect liberty-supporting politcal critters. I know of no similar types in the "D" party.

As far as LP'ers getting riled by folks taking a stone to the LP's feet of clay, I suspect it is a matter of faith-based, ideologicaly pure LP politics vs the ugly, messy reality of D vs R politics on the ground.

Towards the end of WW2; as the fate of Europe was being decided by Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt; the opinion of the Pope became a topic of concern. Stalin's contribution was, "How many battalions has the Pope?" Meaning, the Pope had no way to project his will on the ground, so his opinion was not worth discussing.

The LP has how many battalions? How many members in the US Congress? How many states are governed by folks with an "L" next to their name? How many state legislators?

Wait, here we go:
http://www.lp.org/lpnews/article_57.shtml

42 Elected: 2004 election wrap-up

At least 12 more names can be added to the list of Libertarians elected or appointed to public office in 2004 -- meaning that this year a minimum of 42 Libertarian Party members have been added to the hundreds already in office throughout the nation.

This number is unusually high for a presidential election year: In 2000, 34 victories for Libertarians were reported, and in 1996, only seven candidates were elected to office. By contrast, more Libertarians usually reach office in a non-presidential election year. In 2002, 43 were elected to office.

The names of 11 Libertarian election-winners on this year's Election Day were listed in the December 2004 issue of LP News.

Add to that list the following:

* Ben Brandon was elected as Dade County, Ga.'s, first county executive in a runoff election on Nov. 23, to become the first Libertarian elected to office in a partisan race in the Georgia LP's 32-year history. [See story on Page 1]

* Mark Smith, one of the Indiana LP's candidates for Wayne County Council at-large in November's general election, was appointed in late November to the Centerville Planning Commission. He was not elected to county council. Smith is the manager of Carter Lumber in Centerville.

And Libertarians in California should be especially commended: Eight LP members there have been elected (or re-elected) to office, according to California LP Chair Aaron Starr, and one was appointed to a board by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

* Jim Hill was elected to the Oceano Community Services District board, and Vern Dahl was re-elected to the same board.

* "Longtime CALP member Eric Anderson, of San Diego County, was appointed by Schwarzenegger to our regional water quality board," reports Richard Rider of the California LP. Anderson is vice president of La Costa Flower Shop and Nursery Inc. where he oversees all daily operations. Anderson has also served as director of the San Diego County Farm Bureau for over 12 years and was president from 1996-1998.

* Phillip Leavitt was re-elected to the Carlotta Community Services District Board.

* Linda Strom was re-elected to the Lakeside Community Planning District.

* Frank Manske was elected to the Mount Diablo Health Care District board. [See story, December 2004 LP News; Manske was inadvertently left out of the tally.]

* Robert R. Mendez was re-elected to the Vista Irrigation Division No. 2.

* Laural Kieney was re-elected to the Esparto Community Services District Board.

* Kathleen O'Brien was re-elected to the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District.

And the name of Leslee Berryman, who was elected earlier this year to the Seminole County, Fla., Soil and Water District, was left off December's list of dozens of candidates who were elected or appointed to office before Election Day.


- Published in the January 2005 issue of LP News -

I can not find the list of hundreds already in office on the lp.org web site.

Why do I think that those hundreds already in office are made of the same stuff as Patton's army in the south of England during days before 06JUN1944?
 
"I consider myself a "Thinking Libertarian" meaning I take a full view of human nature in formulating my ideals of lindividual liberty."

Count me in essentialy the same camp. I don't see the libertarian view as a political party but rather an intellectual tool by which to assess what's going on around me in some kind of consistent way. The basic principles of libertarianism are as important and essential in their way as the principles of the Judeo-Christian legacy.

Two points:

I believe the essence of being a "thinking Libertarian," as the phrase implies, is rationality. Libertarianism is not about license or do-it-in-the-road-ism. The 1A is about political speech, not lapdancing, folks, and I don't say that as a prude. We have in the last fifty years let the primacy of Reason as a vital value in our culture gradually erode. This is partially the result of rampant consumerism but it's also the result of the ascendancy of pop culture and a feelings-based educational system that wants people who make nice and fit in.

Libertarianism cannot forget that it exists with a certain historical, cultural, and national framework. It emanated from the Enlightenment and exists, and can only exist, within a society that adheres to the values of the Enlightenment. Those who believe in "open borders" forget that outside our borders Enlightenment values are rare and "liberty" usually means anarchy, malnourished ignorant kids waving AK-47s. Beware. If we need to put a "wall" around freedom, so be it; you'll notice that our bodies have a skin to preserve their identity and integrity.
 
Reality Re-orientation

Only thing holding back legalization of currently illegal drugs are the beer and liquor folks and Big Pharma. From Harry Anslinger up to now, marijuana (as an example) has been mis-represented to the point of being laughable! No tears shed here for those who want to snort, shoot or drink themselves to death..I'd rather Old Mom And Pop not having to worry about getting killed for the price of a gram of crap.

"Reefer Madness" mentality is still alive and well. As for "Drugs"...I would venture to say that HMO's will cram Xanax, Vicodin and Zolft down Baby Boomers throats at $10 a 'script to escape more expensive proceedures. How can they complain of genuine ailements when they're so blasted on "Legal", much higher damaging, more adictive drugs than marijuana could Ever be.

As for the cost of the WOD..it's obscene, embarrassing and, for you agoraphobes who don't travel, laughed at in other parts of the world.

Take Care
 
While I agree with many here ("the WOD is evil and needs to be stopped"), I've got two comment to make relating to the thread:

1)MOst Americans are so conditioned that "drugs are bad", that this issue hurts the LP seriously (at least, it does around here)

2)While yes, the loss of freedom connected to the WOD is WAY too high, don't expect it to go away any time soon Took a Constitutional Amendment to repeal Prohibition, and it hadn't been around as long. Our WOD has been going on longer, and is now more entrenched...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top