Posted on 02/27/2005 2:55:24 PM PST by 82Marine89
The trick is to work to demolish the political parties. This country is not well served by either major party, and of course the parties are not intended to serve the citizens needs anyway. Take away ALL tax deductions for donations to the political parties, don't allow them to deduct any expenses in running for office, and allow donations to candidates only from citizens, and none from corporations or groups. It would not be perfect, but better than the corruption that is the heart of the current system.
Sometimes, I think our Founding Fathers would have a second revolution if they could see what our government and political parties have become.
(A news item about the L.P. carries as much weight as those about the Constitution Party, or the Socialist Worker's Party)
Yet Libertarians come here asserting how conservative they are and how we should follow. Rhetorical question. How is the conservative agenda advanced with Washington's Marie Cantwell (D)rather than Slade Gordon (R)?
I was nearly court-martialed for beating the crap out of a barracks-mate's Turkish "friend" when he groped me while I was sleeping. She (my female CO) was screaming "international incident" until the Division IG set her straight. I still ended up painting most of the place.
The wonder of it all is that I'm not inherently violent and have had little trouble since getting out.
BTTT
I strongly disagree w/ your equating Constitutionalists w/ Conservatives. For example, I respect Rev. Jerry Falwell, & consider hime to be a Conservative. However, he is by no means a Constitutionalist: he suppoorts having the federal government pass laws that the 10th Amendment leaves to the states (anti-drug & abortion laws, for example), & he supports foreign aid to Israel--& no, I'm NOT anti-Israel, but foreign aid to ANY country is flat-out inconstitutional, 'cuz the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the authority to give taxpayer $ to foreign governments. He supports having the feds get involved in education (school vouchers, for example), yet the Constitution never mentions that...& as a matter of fact, James Madison spoke out AGAINST having the federal government involved in our schools. The constitutional answer to this would be to ELIMINATE the unconstitutional Dept. of Education, & give that power back to the state & local governments where it originally belonged.
So conservatives & the Constitution have several points of disagreement, just like modern liberals & the Constitution...albeit on different issues or for different purposes. But either way, the Constitution is being evaded, overlooked, or ignored on BOTH sides of the liberal/conservative debate.
But if you consider the simple ramifications of what he is proposing, it becomes clear that their is more to it than what is said. Take the best case scenario. Quickly transform the Libertarian Party from a party of principle into a party for political power. The best possible results, the Republican Party collapses, and the LP becomes just like the RP(a modern semi capitalist socialist compromise). We will then have to be contending with LINOs instead of RINOs. During the interim, the Democrats will have a field day at the polls, winning more elections than ever. They also will no longer have to concern themselves with the libertarian itch on their flank that has the potential of really burning them by out lefting them with free enterprise.
Of course the best possible outcome is not going to occur. What will occur will be a weakening of the conservative base with in the Republican Party and a strengthening of the conservative base within the Libertarian Party, to the detriment of both. A dream come true for any democratic party policy advocate. They get to have their party winning more elections as their main opposition increasingly splits its votes. And better still, even when they lose elections, they more easily get to have their policies fully advanced by the Republicans. And they get to have the libertarian itch permanently stunted. Win, win, win.
As a Libertarian, I can only hope that my Party comes to its senses, and re think this unofficial, never debated, top down imposed, quick win strategy, of hiding its principles so as to outreach to conservatives and republicans. Hopefully the LP will return to its original purpose of education and furtherance of its principles.
Libertarians need to start recognizing their own self worth, thereby replacing the top down guest speaker concept, with members only strategy debates. Had such been the practice in the past 22 years, it is unlikely that the likes of Mr. Muth and company, would ever survived the challenge. We need to bring to a halt, this mindless approach to politics. We need to stop letting others maneuver the libertarian movement around as a pawns in the rear of the Republican Party. We need to stop being the Democratic Party's cavalry operation.
We Libertarians have a tremendous potential to open ears that will not otherwise hear economic truths. That alone gives us an importance that conservatives will never have, nor ever fully understand. It also gives us a means of building a movement for individual freedom that will be realized either by our ultimate success, or by others taking the ideas furthering them without us. It should not matter to us whether it be us or others who institute those freedoms. It is the Freedom we believe in that should count.
The Party has been wasting unique potential now for last 18 years. Its time for a rebirth of the Libertarian Party, and not its decline into power politics.
(Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News.")
Amen to that.
I do not doubt you in the slightest. But would you explain more. How did it become apparent? Give some specifics, not names, but examples of speech, proposals, characteristics, or what ever comes to mind. I'm really interested.
Won't happen. Overdose is primarily a problem that arises out of the blackmarket nature of the business. Take heroine for example. Good stuff in the country use to be about 6 to 8% pure. Average junk 4%. Weak heroine 2 to 3%. Availability is always in flux. Overdoses occur when a period of low availability (resulting in lower quality due to increased cutting) ends with arrival of new shipments. Quality stuff is suddenly put on the market. When word does not reach the junky that he is getting really good stuff, he treats it as the recent usual and overdoses.
And no donations from government either. Even after being elected, pay for serving should come only from citizen contribution. And if no one donates to a particular office holder, then no pay. (: )
I'm a pro-lifer who doesn't mind voting for pro-choice folks if they argree with me more then their opponent, especially if one holds some pro-life positions and their opponent holds none, but saying that pro-lifers should be fine with this position is abosolutely absured.
No, its more then that, its intellectually dishonest and downright condencending to the basic pro-life belief, that being that life begins at conception and that it is the duty of the Government to protect the life of a 3 month old just as much as a 30 year old. If you don't agree, fine, I can live with that and agree to disagree, but it is just so absured to say that we should just be fine with the position you listed is insulting.
Frankly, because of crap like that, and the general laughably naive foreign policy of the L's since 9/11, that I would rather vote for Barbra Boxer then a L. At least they won't claim to be my friend while they stab me in the back.
Losertarians always talk tough about how they'll show the Republicans in the next election by taking away votes from them (and they really, really mean it this time!) But real Republicans will stay with the party they know has a realistic shot at winning the White House. Maybe we should legalize drugs, but just for the losertarians-then they can get stoned to the gills if they want and they'll stop bitching and whining and leave the rest of us alone.
True, but the HAVE cost us 3 Senate seats and arguably one Governor's race.
1998, Navada, Senate: Reid vs. Ensign: Reid Wins by 428 votes. The L takes 6,000
2000, Washington State, Senate: Cantwell vs. Gorton: Cantwell wins by 2,200 votes. L gets 60,000.
2002, South Dakota, Senate: Thune vs. Johnson: Thune loses by 524. L gets 3,000.
2004, Washington State, Governor: Rossi vs. Gregoire: Rossi wins twice, and loses the manual recount by 129 votes. L gets 63,000.
In fairness, two things:
Thune's loss ended up being a blessing in disquise, and since he unseated Dashle 2 years later, it didn't cost us a seat exactly, because we wouldn't have been able to beat Dashle w/o Thune. That said, it was still a loss because of an L.
The L in the 2004 Washington's Governor's race campaigned as a hardcore Gay Rights person, so it is arguable that she took more votes from Gregoire then Rossi, but she was so low visibility, and so few people actually knew her positions, I still think that she probably cost at least a few more Rossi votes then Gregoire votes, and in a race decided by 129, that's enough.
Things I saw and heard at the last meeting I attended in Nashville:
Speech: "The death penalty is the ultimate form of fascism. Do you think they have any herbal tea here?"
Proposals: "They should have given Hillary's plan a chance. We should finish socializing medicine and be done with it."
Characteristics: Men wearing sandals and woman wearing moustaches.
I don't know anything about either of those people, but your question is indeed rhetorical since it has little or nothing to do with reality. With regard to furthering the conservative agenda there are two cases with Libertarian voters in that election. First, conservative LP voters obviously disagreed with you and felt the LP candidate better represented their conservative values. It is likely they found the tenets of limited government and self-responsibility to be more important than furthering the Bush Doctrine or "reforming" Socialist Security. Second, non-conservative LP voters weren't interested in furthering the conservative agenda. I either case, they wouldn't have voted for Slade Gordon anyway in enough numbers to change the outcome.
Voting is not a team sport. It is not up to voters to "take one for the team" and elect someone who doesn't represent their values and beliefs. That kind of foolishness is how we ended up with the corrupt and degenerate political system under which we suffer today.
Besides, if Slade Gordon is even worth considering as a candidate, especially a Republican candidate, he is not wasting time whining about LP voters who wouldn't have voted for him anyway. If he is worth his salt as a conservative, he is trying to find a way to get his message across to more voters in the next election.
Hopefully things are different where you live, jackbob. I found the Constitution Party more suited to my beliefs.
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.