The courts don't own the Constitution: David Limbaugh pummels pols for jeopardizing freedoms

" if Bush went into the campaign knowing he would have to face Brownne, Buchannan etc. would he have not adjusted his positions to more reflect the base?"

What was Buchanan's support level, 1%? You have to get your votes where they are and they are in the middle not on the fringe. If you pander to the fringes, you lose the middle.

One cannot explain the constitution to anyone who insists upon the right of each individual to define the constitution.

Exactly. You said it perfectly. When I was a military warrior we called that an invitation to a Charlie Foxtrot. And they're not even bright individuals.

Hell freezes over and I agree with you again. Who'da thunk it, LOL?

LOL Next thing you'll be rooting for UCONN tonight. You and the cat.

Please allow me to begin by stating that I am very glad that Bush is President rather than Gore. I like and admire the man. I also admire your diligence in finding and posting the news that I read on FR each morning. How do you find the time? And, third, I genuinely admire your writing ability. You deserve a regular syndicated column.

Having said all that let me expand on why we may disagree on our interpretation of Bush’s motives in signing this bill. And let me emphasize that I do not have a pipeline into the White House, and I assume you don’t either.

I was a supporter of George H. W. Bush when he was president. However, I wrote him a letter in 1990 (which got no response) warning him that he stood a good chance of losing re-election. Why? Because of the people he appointed. It has been stated that personnel is policy. And GHWB appointed a lot of Country Club Republicans. People who disdained sweaty lowbrow, anti-abortion, anti gay rights, Christian conservative “Reaganites,” remember? They were anxious to be seen as “kinder and gentler.” These were blue bloods that identified with the Washington glitterati and wanted good press in the NY Times/Washington Post because those were the papers that they read with their morning toast and the opinions they valued.

So they passed the latest versions of the “equal rights, gay rights, handicapped rights” bills and promulgated rules and regulations that were approved of by the editorial writers and commentators of the New York/Washington Axis. And they sometimes got the “Newfound Respect” awards given to Republicans who betray their constituents. But they managed to piss off their base – big time –without knowing they were doing so because they had nothing in common with their base. Bush the elder may have gotten a bum rap with the grocery scanner episode, but the fact is that it’s hard to keep in touch with the heartland from your Kennebunkport, Maine compound. Bush the elder never had the common touch, and it became painfully obvious during his administration.

And when it came to election time, the New York/Washington glitterati swing into line behind Bill Clinton and the Republican base fumed and sat on their hands and stayed home. And that’s how a hick chump from the fever swamps of Arkansas whose affair with a saloon singer was public knowledge during the campaign ended up in the Oval Office.

Which brings me to George W. George the Younger is a lot more connected with the base than his Daddy could ever hope to be. And he’s a lot more viscerally conservative than his Daddy was. But he appears to lack that true spirit of faith in Conservatism that Reagan had, and that no one else in the Republican Party since seems to have.

If Reagan were here today he would be making the case as to why this CFR bill is a blatant attack on free speech. And by doing so he would create a majority. People can easily understand this issue. Rush Limbaugh has no trouble explaining it. George W. seems to lack that faith and instead seems to want to manage existing opinion instead of using the “bully pulpit” to create opinion. And if he can’t find enough groups to form a ready-made winning coalition, he’ll acquiesce – or as some used to say: lie down and enjoy it.

Political capital is not something you can bank. It must be used or it evaporates. This issue is important because it affects our basic rights as Americans. America is headed into a new and fascinating part of its history. We could be crossing the Rubicon to the first truly global empire, for good or ill. For that reason, it is more important than ever that laws are not written that blatantly expunge our rights as free citizens of a free Republic. The dice should not be tossed that load the entire burden for protecting our inalienable rights on the hope that the Supreme Court will do the right thing. That responsibility belongs to the Legislature and to the Executive. It is not just an opportunity for Bush, it is a sacred obligation.

Love and peace.

Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

There are three co-equal branches of government. The people own the Constitution.

-PJ

Suppose there are three candidates for office. One supports all abortions. One only opposes partial birth abortions. One opposes all abortions. Truely, the first two are evil but one is less evil than the other.

No, you're wrong. If we're speaking about a candidate for FEDERAL office, the only non-evil position was the position of Harry Browne. He would have vetoed any bill providing federal support for abortion...and he would have vetoed any bill (including any partial-birth abortion bill) criminalizing any form of abortion.

Why would he have vetoed both support AND opposition to abortion? The answer is simple: Harry Browne (unlike EVERY OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN 2000) would have FOLLOWED THE CONSTITUTION!

The Constitution provides absolutely no protection to the unborn. Nor does the Constitution provide any "right to choose." ANY federal legislation either funding or criminalizing abortion is a violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. Abortion is, by law (THE Law, the U.S. Constitution) a matter for the states.

Violating the Constitution (breaking The Law) is the true evil. It turns--it has ALREADY turned!--this country from one governed by the Rule of Law to one governed by the Rule of Men. That is the true evil.

That's a nice little speech but it doesn't address the issue. You can substitute any pet peeve you want, gun control, free speech, I just happened to pick abortion. It doesn't matter one whit what a candidate's position is if that candidate cannot be elected.

Take your candidate, Harry Browne. Substitute his name as the un-electable man. Substitute supports the constitution for abortion. Now answer the question.

That's a nice little speech but it doesn't address the issue. You can substitute any pet peeve you want, gun control, free speech, I just happened to pick abortion. It doesn't matter one whit what a candidate's position is if that candidate cannot be elected.

OK, I'll substitute The Federal Debt in 1992, with the completely unelectable Ross Perot (especially after his unfortunate choice for Vice Presiedent). Ross Perot had a HUGE effect on the 1992 election. He ALONE put the issue of The Debt on the table. ("Got this chart, here. Y'see? Y'see?")

That's not the first time an unelectable candidate completely changed the political debate in this country. The Socialists/Progressives never came even close to electing Eugene V. Debs President. But a great many of their (stinking) socialist ideas eventually became law.

History of the Socialist Party in America

Take your candidate, Harry Browne. Substitute his name as the un-electable man. Substitute supports the constitution for abortion. Now answer the question.

I already answered the question. *I* vote for the person who *I* think is the best candidate...which is the candidate most likely to follow The Law (the Constitution).

I vote that way because *I* know that my one vote will NEVER change the result of a Presidential election...and because *I* will never (again) vote for evil. If YOU choose the "lesser of two evils"...you're voting for evil! And that's almost certainly what you'll get.

Mark (Libertarian Party...accept no substitutes!)

Hasn't this forum demonstrated that the "true conservatives", Browne, Buchanan, etc., consider a "moderate" republican more of a threat than a liberal?

As Libertarians, both Harry Browne and I object to be called "conservatives." We ain't no stinking conservatives! (No offense intended. ;-))

Today, our federal government is Big Government. We've had Big Government at the federal level for longer than 90% of our population has been alive. And virtually no one is alive who was an adult when the federal government was small.

Therefore, "conservatives"...who want to conserve...are actually proponents of Big Government. As are the "liberals." (I use quotation marks, because we Libertarians are the REAL liberals...the post-FDR liberals have appropriated and destroyed the name.)

Libertarians want to turn the clock ALL the way back to when the Constitution was followed...before the 20th century. That's not "conservative"...that's "radical."

Mark (radical Libertarian)

Mark, Do us both a favor and go back and read my analogy upthread in post #47. Now tell me what is wrong with the logic in that analogy? Simply throwing cliches around about the lesser of two evils is still evil doesn't affect that logic. Sometimes any vote except the vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote for evil.

While I may disagree with the specifics of Ross Perot and his influence on reducing the deficit (it is plausable that this would have happened without Perot), I do grant you that somtimes an unelectable person can influence debate. But once the debate is over and the time for casting votes comes, it is time to consider the effect that vote will have. Throwing that vote away does not increase it's value. In fact, it trivializes that votes value. You can continue to squander your vote on hopeless candidates but the only effect will be to facilitate the election of those who would do real damage to that you hold dear.