Posted on 10/01/2005 1:18:41 PM PDT by maxxoccupancy
We get Libertarians boasting of that all the times, especially if the Democrat backs legalizing drugs.
What does everyone think? Should we be a division of the Republican Party, or a separate caucus with its own platform, candidates, and conventions?
Yeah, split your minority group into an even smaller group so you can go from being marginally influential to complete political irrelevance. Where DO you nut jobs come up with this crap? This is so utterly wonderfully stupid an idea you MUST be a Democrat.
There is too much apathy among the voters to see a value of a third party. The RLC is and will be a much more effective force if it maintains itself as a coalition within the Republican Party.
The Democrat Party has leaped to left that once was considered "off the wall" and not given any credence. As people realize this they will need to consider the other party.
The "third parties" have no power and if to effect change to promote their agenda they will have to work within one of the bigger parties. Many of the fringe left organizations have learned this and work for the democrats.
The two party system is here to stay for some time yet.
- Roger W Hancock - www.PoetPatriot.com
As much as I wish this was true, what I think we are going to see is the Republicans replacing the Democrats, and the Libertarians replacing the Republicans on economic issues as the Classical Liberals they are. But I could be dreaming. At least recent Gallup Polls show that 20% of Americans consider themselves Libertarians, that doesn't count hardcore RLC believers who probably voted Republican as well as DFC supporters who are essentially free market democrats (libertarians).
Bush's new budget is increased 700 billion dollars, this is purely ludicrous for a conservative! Especially because he ran on the Reagan II kind of campaign convincing most voters including myself that he was pro free market, pro small government, pro economic liberty, yet he has increased the burden of the federal level of state on the individual's life through increased "Homeland Security" crap that was supposed to replace unconstitutional FBI and CIA agencies yet did nothing but lay another extensive beauracracy on top of them that inteferes with our right to travel and burns excessive tax dollars.
The few reforms he has done have been merely inneffectual lip services to pretend to be fiscally conservative, very small amounts compared to where he increased spending. Perhaps this can be blaimed on the senate with all of its pork barrell politickin' socialists. Who knows.
You may have it right except for the federalist part. John Adams and Alexander Hamilton were staunch federalists, Hamilton even said he wanted a "leviathan state with so much power that it would have no reason to try to gain any more". He even convinced George Washington to enforce marshall law with 13,000 soldiers over Whisky Tax rebels in Pennsylvania. Nobody in any state ever paid the Whisky Tax or were brought to court for it, so much widespread dissent led to the eventual removal of the troops and Thomas Jefferson the Anti-Federalist repealed the entire excise tax program in the Jeffersonian Revolution of 1800. Thomas Jefferson is the model statesman and was essentially kept abroad in France while the Constitution was written, luckily he got much of his beliefs injected through James Madison a Federalist and good friend of Jefferson. He later joined Jefferson in his Anti-Federalist (Democratic-Republican) campaign against Washington's spending and taxing and marshall law on the populace. Not to mention a number of other things he did to improve the State of the Union.
I cannot assure you however that the Republican Party is that interested anymore in helping the Libertarian cause that was once at its core of voter representation. But did you know that during the Dole v. Clinton election that the LP got 7% pop vote for their candidate? Truthfully, it may be easier to get a Ron Paul style Republican to run for President than to get a staunch Free Market LP'er. I think the Republicans are probably the only party however that can figure out how to fight the war in the middle east properly which may be pretty sad lol.
Oh god they're trying to get a puppet into office. Great! That will only ensure their demise and allow the Libs to replace them against the Socialistic Republicans.
The two party system is so overrated.
I wonder if the DFC would be willing to vote with the RLC on bills...
The LP draws from both parties as they believe in maximum social and economic liberty from the state. Republicans tend to boast their interest in economic liberty (which I believe is the only thing that can allow alleged "social liberty") while Dems will tell you they support maximum "social liberty" like legalizing property rights to all firearms and illicit substances and deregulating marriage by eliminating mandatory marriage taxes and license fees and by shifting the police force to private security companies who are less likely to violate constitutional rights of their customers.
Each candidate should be judged on his or her merit without regard for party.
The RLC seems to be offering a good option.
one more for our side. By the way, we've decided to take a trick from the Dems playbook, and have stopped going to movies. Why subsidize an industry devoted to pressing the hard left Democratic agenda? Anyone agree with this?
Without reading through all of this, I'd say trying to opt out of the Republican party is a huge mistake. I would guess the LP and The Constitution Party already cover most of what the base of the RLC is in third party form. I would think that there are way more advantages to sticking within the party. I always thought of third parties as being more about activism than actual results.
I think that the Constitution Party candidate for governor of Illinois will produce resutls this year. The current governor is a first-term Democrat who received 52% of the vote in 2002. The republican nominee, State Treasurer Judy Topinka, is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. She's marched in a few gay pride parades. About 2/3 of Republicans I know won't vote for her. Many of them will vote for Randy Stufflebeam, of the Constitution Party. I don't think that he'll win, but he'll probably cause future republican statewide candidates to become more conservative.
Not an authority, but sounds great to me. I just joined and never lurked in this thread before. I think we need a third party Republican primarily but one that is forth right, sticks to its promises and tells you up front what they stand for.
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.