Posted on 11/08/2006 10:24:16 AM PST by Keltik
At this link: http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
Neil Boortz is quoted as saying: "So how did I actually vote when I got that provisional ballot in my hand. Straight Libertarian."
Thank you Neil Boortz. Thanks to you and those who think like you, we now have the Democrats in control of Congress. I hope you and your ilk are very happy.
Free Republic is allegedly a CONSERVATIVE web site. Will you libertarians please go somewhere like Lucianne.com, where you can laugh and smile about how you put the Republicans out of power, and leave Free Republic to the conservatives.
Oh, and one more thing.
Neil Boortz -- GO TO HELL.
Your position is even LESS tenable than others. If Rudy agreed with you on every other position (taxes, borders, gay "marriage", etc.) but disagreed on abortion, you still would vote for him?
All I can say is "Hillary Clinton, President, 2009-2017".
I'm sorry, but did the Executive office lose the Veto power sometime in the last 6 years?
Dude...I hate to break this to you but you and your kind aren't the base...in fact, you're pretty much baseless. The base voted...you folks pouted.
Yes, the republicans are as pure as the driven snow and had nothing to do with losing this election.
Damn those librarians, can't believe Bush married one.
I voted! I voted in Minnesota!! I do represent the base, and that of the future as well. I'm telling you, the republicans of today are old-school democrats. They need to get back to the basics and grow a backbone.
There are some lines you just don't cross. For some folks, that's one of them.
And to whomever stuck the "Eatingourown" keyword on this, you rock.
"I would love to see the liberaltarians leave Free Republic. The fact that someone doesn't like taxes and owns a gun doesn't make them a conservative"
Please define what makes a conservative.
I think Libertarians are extreme conservatives. That is why I am not a Libertarian, but a Republican with libertarian leanings.
Been telling everyone this about 'tarians, whenever a 'tarian shows up to scold conservatives for allow the religious a seat at the table.
His syndicated radio "reach" stretches farther than the confines of Georgia. His constant bashing of Republicans to set him self above the other rant show hosts has abetted this abortion to which our president just donned an operating-theatre gown in his press conference attests. This influence demoralized other Republicans in areas where the actual vote was closer. He is, plain and simple, an opportunist who has found that contrarianism is profitable. Why be concerned when you can "outrun it" (with money) when Slick Willie won the presidency.
Your future is baseless.
The idea that libertarians cost Republicans the election may be a consoling fantasy, but it's a fantasy just the same.
sure...
1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.
Libertarians are basically Liberals, but with a longer name. That's it. No difference. They want to do whatever they want to do - including kill their unborn (but living) children, do drugs, marry their own gender, etc etc.
What should we call the those "real republicans" like Medved, Mark Foley, and David Dreier?
That is false. Libertarians believe that the government should never interfere in the private sector with the exception of protecting life, liberty, and health.
Yes, the unfortunate fact about freedom is that it makes others free to do things you disapprove of.
As I said...everyone has their line...their own breaking point...what is important to them. Abortion is murder of an unborn human being...pure and simple and I will never give my vote to anyone who thinks that is OK because that tells me A LOT about that person.
But...I know there would be a CHORUS of people here on FR who would be sniging along that we should hold our noses and vote for Rudy...since he has the all important "R" by his name. That issue would cause me to not hold my nose...and would lead me to go somewhere else...
And I promise you I would not be alone...a large portion of the base would disappear on election day as well. The bottom line is this: The GOP cannot take it's base for granted any longer....and they need to stop acting like democrats. If I wanted democrats in congress I would vote for them.
I would rather be stabbed in the front than the back.
A GOP PRE-MORTEM: So is it over for the GOP majorities in Congress? It's still too early to say, I guess, but when even John Hinderaker is sounding extremely gloomy that's certainly the way to bet.
So I want to stress, for the edification of any Republican leaders who might pay attention, that this is the result of a series of unforced errors on their part. Following is a (partial) list:
1. The Terri Schiavo affair: The bitterness it aroused, which was substantial, opened a fracture in the GOP coalition: Social-conservatives against the rest. And as I noted at the time, the social conservatives were pretty nasty to the rest. No, it wasn't really a case of "theocracy" at work, as people like Ralph Nader agreed with the social conservatives. But the haste to enact federal legislation over a matter of state law, and the mean-spiritedness with which those who disagreed were treated, did the Bush coalition no good. What's more, as I noted at the time (see first link above), this wasn't enough to make the social conservatives happy anyway. Politically, I think this marked the beginning of the end.
2. The Harriet Miers debacle: Plenty of warning in the blogs that this was a big mistake, but all ignored by the White House and Congressional leadership. Social conservatives were mad here, and so was anyone who cared about the credentials of nominees. The nomination was withdrawn, but the damage was done.
3. The Dubai Ports disaster: Here I think that the Administration was on defensible ground from a policy perspective, but its ham-handed approach -- once again ignoring early warnings from the blogs -- turned it into a mess, and cost it major credibility with its national security constituency. The Administraiton was bumbling and inept in addressing this matter, which gained currency because of its flaccid stance on the cartoon Jihad. The consequence: Lost faith from its strongest constituency.
4. Immigration: Another unforced error. The national security constituency once again lost faith in the Administration. You can't talk about secure borders when the borders are porous. The Administration also failed to make a strong clear argument for immigration, outsourcing that to the Wall Street Journal, which did its best but couldn't do the President's job. Again, the White House's position on immigration was defensible in the abstract, but favoring easy immigration is one thing, favoring easy illegal immigration is another.
5. William Jefferson: A Democratic Congressman is caught in a bribery scandal with a freezer full of cash, and Dennis Hastert backs him up, making clear that protection of insider privilege is more important to the Republican leadership in Congress than either party or principle. The White House, at least, intervened here, eventually. Add to this the GOP leadership's failure to follow through on promised ethics reforms, and its addiction to pork-barrel spending, and you've got lots of reason to think that they don't stand for anything except stuffing their pockets.
6. Foleygate: Not much of a scandal in itself, but the last straw for a lot of people. As Rich Lowry noted, a long chain of missteps and self-serving actions has exhausted their stock of moral and political capital, leaving them vulnerable to, well, almost anything. This was probably enough.
At the end of this process, the Republicans have managed to leave every segment of the base unhappy, mostly over things that weren't even all that important. It's as if they had some sort of bizarre death wish. Looks like the wish will come true . . . .
As I've said before, the Republicans deserve to lose, though alas the Democrats don't really deserve to win, either. I realize that you go to war with the political class you have, but even back in the 1990s it was obvious that we had a lousy political class. It hasn't improved, but the challenges have gotten greater. Can the country continue to do well, with such bad political leadership? I hope so, because I see no sign of improvement, no matter who wins next month.
As I wrote earlier, in suggesting that the GOP deserved to lose:
The counter-case is that a Democratic House would be a disaster for the country. I gathered from Boortz's discussion that that's the case that Hannity and Limbaugh were making yesterday. It's a strong argument -- except that if Republican control of the Congress is so all-fired important to the future of civilization, then why haven't the Republicans who control Congress been acting as if it is so important? . . .
Were GOP control of the Congress so important to the country, wouldn't the GOP leadership have exercised a trifle more self-discipline and self-denial? And if it's not capable of doing so, then what kind of leadership is it?
If, as seems likely, the GOP fares badly in next month, it should ponder this point. If it somehow squeaks through -- well, then it should ponder this point just as hard, as it will have squeaked through in spite of its performance, not because of it.
"Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. PERIOD!"
Yup. Specifically, Bush blew it by (1) being a liberal when it comes to protecting our borders (the people coming across aren't just illegal Mexicans; some are terrorists), and (2) not spamming the airwaves with the all POSITIVES that came in to being during his administration. There's no WAY this should've happened, considering the good economy, jobless rate, stock market numbers, etc. He wouldn't have had to even think about a slogan -- just take Carville's "it's the economy, stupid" slogan out of mothballs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.