Posted on 09/14/2009 5:01:13 PM PDT by seanmerc
RUSH: And you enjoyed it for all the reasons that you've mentioned. But we've gotta be really, really careful here, Dana, about this left versus right government thing. You mentioned third party, and we've been through this with Perot.
CALLER: I know that. I know that. And I think Perot helped Clinton get in, I don't doubt that. I do believe there has to be a huge movement before people can vote that way.
RUSH: But a third party is not going to do anything other but ensure the reelection of Obama and every other Democrat running for office because even if you come up with a charismatic third-party presidential candidate, still isn't going to have anybody of any significance running in that party for seats in Congress of the US Senate unless this movement happened to become the majority movement in the country, and that's not what's happening. I respectfully disagree with you here. I understand the anger at the Republican Party. Hell, I've got it, too. I've had it for a long, long time. But don't make the mistake of thinking this is not a left versus right thing. This is a conservative ascendancy that's going on out there. You didn't show up and protest like this when the Republicans were in power.
(Excerpt) Read more at rushlimbaugh.com ...
Do you remember when Reagan’s Daughter ran against Goldwater’s Son and a couple of other conservatives for Senator in California?
No, nobody has to “earn” our vote.
We can’t pass the buck like that - or we can I suppose, but its a low thing to do.
We are obligated to make the best choice of the options available. Anything less is a dereliction of duty.
“Those libertarian positions, not the GOP.”
You mean Libertarian Party positions.
The GOP doesn’t really have “positions” any longer, since the platform is pretty much totally ignored. They certainly don’t want our border secured any more than the Democrats do.
So let's suppose that Stalin and Hitler are the only "options available" on the ballot. Does that mean you are obligated as a "duty" to vote for one of these mass murderers?
“No, nobody has to “earn” our vote.”
Do politicians work for us or we them?
“We are obligated to make the best choice of the options available. Anything less is a dereliction of duty.”
I did. It wasn’t McCain and for damn sure wasn’t Obama. I refuse to bow any longer to the tyranny of the lesser evil. If I’m damned for that, then I’m in honorable company.
That’s right libertarian, it does get tiresome talking about something that is almost nonexistent but they do have party positions.
Vietnam cost more than 58,000 Americans killed. The WOT has cost us something over 3000 Americans killed. Sounds less costly to me.
there were 10 Republicans running much of 2007. Gee, if all of them were worthless, then somebody missed an opportunity to run against them.
All of the 49 “third parties” combined pulled in a crushing 1.4% of the popular vote.
“Education is not one of those purposes.”
No, its not. But, I’m afraid, that horse has long ago left the barn and wandered a few counties over. The Constitution has been read rather tortuously for a couple of hundred years to justify such a mass of stuff that you will not stuff it all back. Thats not going to happen.
Lets start with railroad land grants perhaps ? Or maybe the Panama canal ? Or the income tax, or the Federal Reserve, or you name it under Roosevelt. The Dept. of Education is a very minor unconstitutional institution in comparison to the mass of them.
The overall march of socialism in this country went largely unabated through over twenty years of Republican control. Eroding of Rights, Keynesian economics, moral relativism, eroding sovereignty, federal monolithic government... I could go on all day. All of these things continued under Republican administrations, and under Republican controlled houses.
You sir, are being played. Until the Republicans stop paying lip service to the things they say they stand for, and actually FIGHT, they account for *nothing*, at best, and are likely complicit contributors.
If these two are the only options on the ballot, then you are relieved of duty and are free to flee to Mexico.
No, let us argue reality instead.
I believe Rush is right too. What we need to do is vote out the bad Republicans, vote the few good ones back in and look for new candidates.
“Do politicians work for us or we them?”
What does that have to do with the argument ? They work for us, settled point. They are also very loosely accountable to us, also settled point, that the nature of the democratic beast. Now, what is YOUR responsibility with respect to said politicians ?
“If I’m damned for that, then I’m in honorable company.”
Whether you are damned or not is up to a higher power. But anger or dissatisfaction with your politicians is an unwise and immature basis on which to make voting decisions. One must view the options available and judge the likely effect of your choice in the broad context.
I have to say you are one of the few libertarians I have seen complaining that Bush didn't kill ENOUGH Muslims,
Would you like to see the plain language version of the traditional libertarian platform on border controls? It is a bit of an eye opener.
BTT
You are knowledgeable enough to know that partisanship was greatly feared by the founders, and the two party system was acceptable, but with reservations precisely due to that fact. Adams particularly noted the need to vote one's conscience. That is what our system is designed for, not the hackneyed politicking and polarization of partisanship.
To the point that Republicans (singly) represent Conservatism, I will support them. As a party, I owe them *nothing*.
Armitage and Arastor certainly implied it, not to mention Lew Rockwell, who was still around.
No.
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.