Proposal for a New Political Party

Vanity | 6-30-04 | Self

[jmc813]

I would add that a candidate must be an absolutionist on the 2nd Amendment and that there be at least a pro-life streak in him/her. For instance, opposing 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions would be the bare minimum.

[MayflowerMadam]

Saw the Constitution Pary convention on C-Span this week. Sounds pretty great to me. The speech of the presidential candidate was wonderful.

[Final Authority]

From what you copied and pasted one can derive several conclusions. Please summarize for me what you mean to say in your own words. Thanks.

[Capitalism2003]

Ah yes...Barry Goldwater, the LAST Libertarian Republican. Shame we don't have many like him today.

"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

--Barry Goldwater

Can you imagine hearing this from any GOP senators today?
Ronald Reagan vetoed 40 spending bills in his first term. Bush = 0.00 Today's Republican leadership is no longer conservative, and noone who believes in limited government can honestly support their actions. The democrats want to drive us off a 200 foot cliff...and far too many Freepers are willing to drive su over a 150 foot cliff and call it a "victory" simply because the dems lose.

We end up pancakes either way...unless something radical happens.

[Protagoras]

We disagree. I never thought hard core party people would change parties. If you want to see what stinks, look at the direction of your party and you will know.

As to realistic thought,,,,,,if you think your party is taking you where the country should go, you are the one touching himself. Unless you want the continued slide of course.

[Protagoras]

Great, go vote for them. Good luck.

[Protagoras]

You all can add anything you want. Kinda like a wish list. But you won't get elected.

Realistic specific goals, and very few of them is what I think we need.

[Capitalism2003]

I'm saying the lesser of two evils is a losing strategy. Supporting huge government republicans is driving us towards the same brick wall, in a slightly more comfortable seat. What we need are people willing slam the brakes and prevent the country from committing suicide by socialism. They do exist, but unfortunately there is no "R" or "D" behind their names on election day, so most people tend to ignore them...and end up pushing the accelerator a bit harder every four years.

[Final Authority]

I agree. Now how do we obtain an elective majority? Remember what the followers of Perot did for us?

[Texas Federalist]

My bottom line is will the Republicans or Democrats be better for the country in this election? So far in my lifetime, my answer has never come up "Democrats."

The best outcome may be a divided government. The Republicans accomplished more domestically under Clinton than they have under Bush. Until another Republican leader like Reagan comes along, or a viable third party is established, gridlock may be our best friend.

[Texas Federalist]

You all can add anything you want. Kinda like a wish list. But you won't get elected. Realistic specific goals, and very few of them is what I think we need.

Support for the Second Amendment, as the poster you were responding to suggested, is a very palatable issue with the electorate. I might even make it one of the six.

[labard1]

I supported Goldwater in 1960 (even though I was not old enough to vote then), and still remember his concession speech at the Republican convention after he lost to Nixon that year. Essentially, he said, "Conservatives grow up" and take back the Republican Party. Ronald Reagan succeeded in doing just that. Anybody who wants to disown Reagan and his legacy is no friend of mine.

It's true that Reagan vetoed lots of spending bills, but then again the Dims controlled the House for all 8 years of his administration, and the Senate for 6 years. Moreover, the deficits under Reagan were about as bad as under Dubya. I don't quarrel with Reagan's deficits because they brought down the Evil Empire without a shot being fired. That was a bargain in my book, and well within the Constitutional responsibility of the federal government.

There are plenty of Republicans in the House who meet the Goldwater libertarian test. I don't know all the Republicans in the Senate well enough to say, though I suspect there may be some. How about Mitch McConnel of Kentucky? Inhofe or Nickles of Oklahoma? Allen of Virginia? Brownback of Kansas? Cornyn of Texas? Lindsey of South Carolina? Santorum of Pennsylvania? Sununu of New Hampshire? Craig of Idaho? I'm not certain about any of them, and suspect there may be others in the general category that I don't know enough about, but I know most Republicans are better than most Dims (Zell Miller excluded).

My concern these days is more with followers of that dynamite religion (Islam) than with details of domestic policy, though I generally agree with you that the federal government spends too much, hasn't cut back on an overreaching government enough, and hasn't returned to the ideals of the founding fathers. I don't think voting only for people who share all my ideals is likely to do so, either. If it weren't for the Republican Party, Reagan wouldn't have become President of the United States, and wouldn't have been able to accomplish what he did. He may have done more for the GOP than it did for him, but without it he would never have beaten Carter. Electing Ronald Reagan as President covers a lot of sins in my book.

[labard1]

"gridlock may be our best friend."

Often that's right, though I must say gridlock in the Senate hasn't done wonders for the federal judiciary. I suspect you would agree that results there would be better if the GOP had a big majority in the Senate.

[TomServo]

Return education to the communities - or county, state level.

[k2blader]

I like it. Except it should be clarified that Social Security must be completely eliminated. Let's completely eliminate Medicare too.

[leprechaun9]

There really are only two political sides; Conservative and Liberal. Depending on the profile of registered voters in each jurisdiction, the candidate becomes a registered member of the majority political registration.

For example, although Bret Schundler won the Republican Primary for Governor the last time around, the Republican Liberals did not support him. They were more willing to have Jim McGreedy as Governor.

[stands2reason]

Vindication Ping

[longtermmemmory]

other political parties will NEVER have a chance as long as the Democrat party exists. Once they are gone. THEN smaller upstarts can be viable.


Look at nader, he is being attacked by the left not for his threat to ideas, but for his threat to their power.

This will be good because all the little fringe groups of the democrat party will form their own little interest parties.

[Protagoras]

I like it. Except it should be clarified that Social Security must be completely eliminated. Let's completely eliminate Medicare too.

We want lots of things, but no party will be elected on that platform right now.

[Protagoras]

Look at nader, he is being attacked by the left not for his threat to ideas, but for his threat to their power.

Same precise thing from the right.