Posted on 10/01/2005 1:18:41 PM PDT by maxxoccupancy
I have been talking to people about the Republican Liberty Caucus, but I have been having a hard time explaining the issue to people. Our statements of principle have always centered around smaller government and proptecting our rights. A surprisingly small majority of Americans support these two principles, but it's enough to form a political movement.
The RLC has its own statement of principles, and its own conventions. Members are not expected to tow the party line, especially for RINO's. I believe that we should sell the RLC as a separate political group that supports libertarians, constitutionalists, reform party members, and independents, as long as they support our core constitutional principles.
The idea behind the RLC was to form a political group that runs candidates (with an R after their name on the ballot) without the third party ballot access problems. There is a strong need for a large, big tent political movement that can get outsiders in. The few RLC members we have serving in state legislatures are good.
I believe we need a stronger base of support, and I think we need to approach the voters with a broad based alternative to the "two party" system. I believe that we need to tell voters that we are different form the GOP, that we have our own group, and the RLC candidates will stick to their core principles.
Does ANYONE really like Jeannie Pirro? She's the Lebanese-American Harriet Miers.
Yes. Pirro is her husband's name. Having a vowel at the end of your name helps in Yonkers, Eastchester, and certain other parts of Westchester.
Where did you hear this? I would subscribe to the latter assessment, but I don't know what they are trying. Maybe to become the national equivalent of the blue man group.
And THIS kind of stuff is why I only vote big "L" libertarian as an occasional protest vote. Sorry, freepatriot32.
I just can't envision a scenario under which he would not improve upon-or at worst, match-the performance of Rick Lazio.
Yes, I remember the hijinx of the Blue-or more accurately, purple-Man fondly.
Wasn't he running in Idaho?
Libertarians will not stay unless they see their agenda getting somewhere.
We should have left by now, then. Most of us have not, simply because we don't see any viable options.
I sometimes vote libertarian. Guess that's my small way of sending a message.
I do the same thing. If I think that an election won't be close, I vote for the Republican, since I don't want to help split the conservaitve vote, helping the Democrat win with less than the majority. If I think that the Republican candidate is too liberal and that the election won't be close, I vote for the Constitution Party candidate, and, if that party doesn't have a candidate, in that race, I vote for the Libertarian. In Oct. 2004, I thought that Bush was too liberal and that Kerry would win 57% of the vote in my state, Illinois. I voted for the Constitution Party candidate, and Kerry won 57% in IL.
I wish that more conservatives would vote the way that we do. It might cause Republicans to become more conservative.
When I first looked into the RLC it was because I was a life long Republican who developed a libertarian view. I remember at one time the RLC saying it was made up of libertarians who saw the Republican party as the best tool for spreading their philosophy, and for seeing it enacted. I agree with this.
The third party route is a sure fire route to political obscurity. Within the GOP is the best route for these principles to be spread. The important thing is the spread of the principles, but the need for majorities to accomplish an agenda makes alliances with a major party necessary.
A third party would ensure the win of our opponents and the shelving of our agenda. If you are willing to shelve the agenda to claim the moral high-ground then go ahead, but don't be surprised when you get nothing done.
The blue man was running in Montana.
I appreciate it.
:)
Maybe he would have had better luck if he had run for Ed Koch's old position as District Leader of the Village.
;0)
I think if you want change, you try to make it in the Republican primaries, then after the result of the primary, it's time to vote Republican and not to split up the conservative vote.
Sometimes, if the election won't be close, a conservative can vote for a minor party candidate without helping the Democrat.
In 2000, I lived near San Diego, and I thought that the republican nominee for the U.S. Senate, Congressman Tom Campbell, was too liberal. I knew, because of a few polls, that Sen. Feinstein would beat Campbell by 15%-20%. If I thought that the election would be close, I would have voted for Campbell, since I didn't want to help split the anti-liberal vote, helping Feinstein win with less than half of the vote. Since I knew that Feinstein would get at least 55%, I voted for Diane Templin, of the American Independent Party. Feinstein beat Campbell, about 56%-38%. The thrid and fourth place candidates were the Green and Libertarian candidates. Templin was fifth, with 2%.
Sir, I am shocked! If one doesn't vote Republican in a General Election, one is a weasel? I've looked at the Liberty Score of my Senators and Rep and it wasn't good. I'll vote my conscience against my Authoritarian Republicans and be a weasel.
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.