WHY WE MUST VOTE REPUBLICAN

Fiedior Report On the News #293 ^ | 10-27-02 | Doug Fiedor

[supercat]

LOL. I think there's no difference between Liberal Democrats and Liberal Libertarians. To each their own, I guess. LOL. I group them together when talking politics.

The Libertarians believe the government should acknolwedge people's rights of self-defense. The Democrats think those who would seek to be able to defend themselves should be thrown in jail.

The Democrats believe students should be required to attend school lectures about the wonders of 'sexual diversity' and other such nonsense. The Libertarians believe parents should be allowed to control their children's education.

Libertarians believe people should be allowed to keep the money they earn. Democrats believe people should be allowed to keep what other people earn.

Those seem like some pretty big differences to me.

[Ms. AntiFeminazi]

bumped and bookmarked! Thank you, Doug Fiedor, for an excellent summary of what *could* be after November 5, 2002. Let's pray it doesn't happen!

[Selmo]

If the average GOP politician was cut from the same bolt of cloth as Tancredo I might actually vote 'publican. Other than him, nobody seems serious about deporting illegals and putting concertina wire and troops on the border to stem the invasion. So screw it...I'll vote America First Party here on out and the GOP globalists can import their own demise by being unconcerned about stamping out immigration.

After yet another amnesty, today's illegals will be tomorrow's socialists, pulling the vote lever for the Dems.

Voting Republican and 'working within the system' doesn't get anything done. Some are even pouring gasoline on the fire and voting Democrat just to speed things along.

[WOSG]

José E. Serrano**, the Democrat Delegate from Puerto Rico, is the ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary and would get that chairmanship. Also from Puerto Rico is the Democratic Delegate Carlos Romero-Barceló. He would chair the National Parks & Public Lands Subcommittee. Eni Faleomavaega**, the Delegate from American Samoa, would chair the Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife & Oceans Subcommittee. Robert Underwood, the Delegate from Guam, would chair the Committee on Resources' Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.

WHAT ??!??!? ... Help me out here. how are people who are not Congressmen allowed to wield such power in a committee?

[WOSG]

George Washington was a Federalist. They dont exist today and closed decsendent is the Republican party (via Whig heritage).

And the most pro-liberty President of the United States IN OUR LIFETIMES was Ronald Reagan. Runner up: George W. Bush.

Note also that LP Presidential candidate from 1988 is now Republican Congressman Ron Paul.

It's obvious: The Democrats promote Socialism, the biggest enemy of freedom. If you support freedom, oppose the Democrat. only the Republicans are big enough to keep the Democrat socialists out of the the powerful chairmanship chairs in Congress and Senate .. so vote Republican.

If you really believe in freedom, write letters to the editor advocating that. any vote for LP is equivalent of a NOTA vote.

[Clemenza]

I'm voting Republican for every office here in New York with the exception of the Governor, as I think Pataki is a worthless socialist.

[WOSG]

The Republicans said they wanted to end the Federal Department of Education, they got control of both houses and did not.

The Socialist Democrats were the ones who stopped this, though. Fact is, the politicians will follow the votes. But the GOP Congress of 1994-1996 was quite bold in slowing and stopping programs. They were effective enought they forced Clinton to go from trying to be LBJ Jr to saying 'the era of big government is over'.

Conservative REPUBLICANS did that. Libertarians are about 218 seats away from having any impact.

We have a chance for a conservative/libertarian/moderate center-right COALITION to reduce Government and move in the right direction (eg Bush *is* proposing flexibility in Soc Sec program, he *is* proposing making tax cuts permanent etc., these are issues for 2003 and 2004, if Dems own either House of Congress, its DOA). Or we can splinter and let the left/Socialists run the show.

Frankly far too many Libertarians and Conservatives lack the imagination of the leftists. The Leftists understand that there are MANY avenues to gaining and exercising power - the vote IS JUST ONE OF THEM. NARAL, NOW, ACLU - you dont see them getting upset over Democrats that only 80% follow their path. why? because the leftist special interests have many other means - intimidiation, agitprop, press releases, marches, media PR, the campus, etc. - to advance their agenda and their ideas.

Deep down this is about winning the hearts and minds of the citizenry. Nothing more nothing less. A pro-freedom voting public will do the right thing, a complacent socialist voting public will vote for the socialists.

Libertarians should quit focussing so much energy on the pointless pursuit of minor losing candidates who only split the pro-freedom vote, since most pro-freedom votes are Republican votes. USE FOCUSSED POLITICAL ACTION AND DIRECT LOBBYING TO ACHIEVE YOUR END. In other words: 1. Vote Republican, 2. Get organizaed as a bloc and TELL THE REPUBLICAN WAHT TO DO. If you vote for him/her, you *own* him or her. Really Libertarians need to cultivate WINNING ADVOCATS FOR FREEDOM. IMHO, the RLC is doing 10 times more good than the LP since they use this far more successful strategy.

The LP has been here since 1973 and has had 3 decades of irrelevency to show for it. As long as you vote for people WHO DONT WIN, YOU HAVE NO VOICE IN THE HALLS OF POWER.

So of course the smart thing is to use the many other means, like freeper-style activism and ideological warfare to oppose the Democrats and Socialists who are the real enemies of freedom in our country today.

[moteineye]

The house and the senate may be lost because of libertarian votes. If this happens the country will turn even further left.However you will be able to say you stood by your hollow principles.Clinton became president at least once from the stray votes of libertarians.So thanks a lot.This coutry didn't need that.A DEMOCRAT may sound conservative but if he knows what is good for him he will vote the party line or he can forget financial support.Their voting records prove it.

[WOSG]

Sure, George Bush Sr. dug his own grave by compromising with Democrats on raising taxes etc. and having a tin ear on economy, but in terms of election dynamics, it is the case that Perot's involvement and Buchanan's in the primary drew a lot of strength and white-male votes from George Bush.

Remember Bush went from 54% of the vote in 1988 to 37% in 1992, despite having won a great Gulf War victory and despite the fact that 1992 economy was in recovery mode, this 3rd party effect created a harping on economy, making things sound worse than they were. Folks like Perot kept the election on the "issues" which was actually a way to create a smokescreen to hide Clinton's manifest character and honesty flaws, while creating a 'blame game' against Bush, made it easier for Clinton to sell his "its the economy stupid" message. Perot ended up being a stalking horse for Clinton. And lots of white male votes were drawn off by Perot.

[LowOiL]

would you vote for someone who said, "Police work is hard enough already. No one should make it harder. I think it’s wrong to let people carry concealed weapons" Elizabeth Dole has flip flopped back and forth. She also said "‘Seven years after President Clinton and his allies outlawed so-called ‘assault’ weapons, there appears to have been little effect on crime prevention or punishment.’” (News & Observer, 11-20-01)

She was a wishy washy woman to say the least. She made those comments in 1999 and has since then she endorsed North Carolina’s law allowing the carrying of concealed weapons.” (News & Observer, 11-20-01)

She has futher related the below lately. "Seven years after President Clinton and his allies outlawed so-called assault weapons, there appears to have been little effect on crime prevention or punishment. What is effective is the Instant Check system. We should stick with what works. We do not need new restrictions on those who already observe the thousands of gun laws on the books."

But what did her opponent support???? Dole has backed down on her statements and looked at the issue futher and changed her position. But I, like you, do wish the woman was not so flip/floppy, but at least she flopped the right dirrection. Personally I don't like to vote for a women in high positions for this very reason. (Yeah women, gripe all you like, I'm a pig). But I don't vote in that state and my armchair computer chat here carries little weight. Mrs. Dole was not who I would of chosen in the primaries, but the people did. She is the better still than the demorat nethertheless.

BTW. Looks like Bowles stands firmly in the gun control group. (source: http://www.ncrpa.org/pc402.htm ) ---National North Carolina rifle and pistol association.

[supercat]

Perot may have tipped the scales for Clinton in 1992, but Bush certainly deserves a reasonable chunk of the blame. At least one analysis I'd read indicated that Clinton had the MAJORITY of the vote in enough states to win the Electoral College; if that's the case, every Perot vote could have gone to Bush without changing the outcome of the election.

Dole in 1996 was another story. That guy was such a horrible candidate he would have lost to a ham sandwich. And if the Republicans hadn't given up their spine in backing such a lackluster candidate they might have been much better able able to keep Clinton 'in check'.

Bill Clinton was/is a vile human being, but Republicans seem to forget that he was actually not a flaming liberal. He was more interested in his own gratification than in opposing the Republicans, and in fact passed a considerable number of Republican initiatives after re-branding them as his own.

Dole would probably have been a far worse President than Clinton should have been allowed to be (if the Republicans in Congress had had any spine), and may perhaps have been a worse president than Clinton in fact was.

[Demidog]

No. I'm saying right now government should work to change the hearts and minds of the American people and get them thinking moral again

So you want the government to become the church. They weren't able to prevent 9/11 and you want them to create a moral populice? LOL.

[WOSG]

At least one analysis I'd read indicated that Clinton had the MAJORITY of the vote in enough states to win the Electoral College; if that's the case, every Perot vote could have gone to Bush without changing the outcome of the election.

I am sure that is not the case. Clinton only won 43% of the vote, and did not have a blowout on electoral college.

I agree that Dole was an awful candidate. It kind of underscores my point about how libertarians must behave. Dole nevers articulated WHY YOU SHOULD THINK CONSERVATIVE AND VOTE ACCORDINGLY. He just stated his positions, often without any intellectual girding. Much different from say a Reagan or a Newt Gingrich. With guys like Dole, it just makes it so easy for the Liberals to set the agenda.

I emphatically disagree with Dole vs. Clinton on who would be better as President though. Clinton *was* a flaming liberal on all but the headline issues and only was in the center because he was poll-driven. his judge appointments have been consistent leftists, his appointees passed regulation after regulation, and he did a lot to aid and abet the corruption that increased democrat patronage and power.

Conservatives and Libertarians need to be less concerned about who get into office, and more concerned about the IDEAS that are advocated and advanced. We can only talk about our issues if we get advocates who are Republicans into office, if we make sure Democrats do not have majorities in Congress, and that the media doesnt use their power to set a liberal agenda.

The battle for ideas will continue. In the end, the truth will win.

[Faithfull]

I want you to know you made my day. I have been concerned that our pastors have lost any sense of 'holy boldness'. Most won't encourage their congregations to vote, let alone speak to the cultural issues of our times. In my opinion, part of the reason for the moral decline is because our spiritual leaders have become wimpy and liberal. I thank God for you and want to encourage you pastor. Stay the course...I'll stand in the gap for you in prayer!

[Commie Basher]

"Currently, the GOP is "least worst" on socialism."

This current GOP administration is the most socialist, anti-Constitutional Republican administration in history.

We may both be right. Pretty sad, no?

[Commie Basher]

"Come November, I'm voting straight Libertarian"

I am sure Tom, Dick and Hilllary! will appreciate you and your principled stand.

I no longer care. I used to hate Billary, but now that Billary = Bush, I no longer care.

I voted for Bush (holding my nose) because I wanted a retreat from globalism, but instead, I got war hysteria. "Conservatism" now means "war at all costs." Doesn't matter how flimsy the evidence tying Iraq to 9/11, we must attack Iraq, no matter what the financial or political costs. Even as Bush is cozying up to Red China -- which is calling its own dissidents "terrorists" -- and Bush may agree.

9/11 could have been avoided if we had followed the Libertarian policy of foreign non-intervention. Well, I've voted GOP long enough. Regardless of whether the Demopublicans or Republicrats win, it's all the same.

Hillary, Bush, Daschle, Rumsfeld ... who cares? Not me. Not anymore.

[The Raven]

One of the hardest concepts to convey to the average American is that by voting for the Democrats - their wages and benefits go down - not up - in the long term. No matter where theyt lie on the economic scale

[billbears]

Sorry no dice, she's a 100% poll watcher of the same breed and type as Clinton. She'll say and do what the people want to hear, unlike the great man she is replacing.

[karlamayne]

This current GOP administration is the most socialist, anti-Constitutional Republican administration in history.

I voted for Bush (holding my nose) because I wanted a retreat from globalism, but instead, I got war hysteria. "Conservatism" now means "war at all costs." Doesn't matter how flimsy the evidence tying Iraq to 9/11, we must attack Iraq, no matter what the financial or political costs. Even as Bush is cozying up to Red China -- which is calling its own dissidents "terrorists" -- and Bush may agree.

But you get the "Republican" prescription drug program!

Seriously, if you have children, whomever you vote for [or don't even vote] should be with the mind that "the lesser of two evils" doesn't work anymore. Down the line, the kids are going to have to pay for it, and at least you can say that you voted [or not] your principles. Nowadays that's the best you can do.

[4CJ]

you see, if the dims should regain control--it will be the Libertarians fault///

libertarian and refuse to vote for a candidate simply because of the "R" beside their name. If 'pubbies can't win because of ideological differences it's their problem. Become MORE conservative, and maybe they'll separate themselves from the dims.