Posted on 05/13/2002 3:12:19 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
This is one of the reasons we need to return to a part-time legislature and governor. Obviously politicians have way too much time on their hands.
It's much easier to pull over an American on his way to or from work, for seatbelt violation, exceeding the speed limit by 10 mph etc.
As Americans, we are required to produce proper, current license, registration, insurance, etc. And Americans always show up in court and pay the fines because they know where to come and get you and you and you.
Sometimes when I'm feeling really ticked at the stupidity of the GOP, I'll tell my fellow Republicans I going to bolt to the Ls. Maybe one day I even will.
Take my advice and make the move today; the longer you wait the more guilt you'll feel later. It's tempting to think of politics as just another diversion often times like following your favorite sports team. But I find myself often having to be reminded that for all the bread and circuses provided by the Rs and the Ds this is all very serious business. When I was a Republican it was too easy to rationalize staying in the party by thinking I couldn't make a difference as one more face in a party nobody knew or cared anything about (the Libertarians). Once I stopped rationalizing I realized that I had an obligation to myself to make whatever difference I could and not be distracted by the arrogant pursuit of other peoples' approval. None of this is intended as a slight to you or anyone else still in the GOP more as a suggestion.
Amen!!! Police are supposed to find and punish the guilty, not harass the innocent. They have become (often unwilling, I believe) tax collectors for the welfare state.
I also admire Howard Phillips but how do you feel about Harry Browne?
You must not have understood anything in my last post.
The way I have it figured 90-plus percent of Democratic politicians are thieves or fools, while the Republican percentage is about half. So, I'm not giving up yet.
And I am growing in my affection for Bush. I voted for him out of a loathing for Clinton-Gore more than anything else. I have been pleasently surprised by his actions.
I would not be surprised if the Libertarians become the new second party within the next decade, but that will be because the Dems -- not the GOP -- self-destructs. That would be a very good thing.
Couldn't agree more; it's the best I've seen of its kind and really gives a wakeup call to our politically neutered churches.
I wish I could share your optimism about the fate of the Communists (I mean, Democrats; no I was right the first time). Unfortunately they have too great an incentive to stick together (mutual lust for other peoples' money, property, freedom etc.). Many people wrote them off after the '84 Presidential election when Reagan crushed Mondale and never believed they would occupy the White House in the next 10 years, much less reeelect a Democrat president but of course they did. It may sound strange coming from a Libertarian but I don't honestly believe we will replace either party anytime in the forseeable future if ever. It's tempting to believe but not supported by the facts. Both parties have maintained an iron grip on power and basically take turns ruling the country, not leading.
I understood everything in your last post. My point is that Republican presidents gave us those justices regardless of the circumstances of those appointments. They were not helpless victims of those circumstances; knowing the consequences of making such lifetime appointments they did it anyway and with the happy exception of Thomas and Scalia (most of the time) it has been a disaster, in my opinion. I will not let the Democrats of the hook for their awful appointments either (Ginsburg, Breyer etc.) but I expect more from a Republican party that claims to be something it frequently is not. The Democrats are out-and-out Communists but they don't pretend to be anything else. They just committ their various outrages and dare the GOP to do anything about it. More often than not, the Republicans don't.
I confess too a certain fondness for the man; I liked his father and many other Republicans as people and still do. Unfortunately I can no longer separate the people from the policies. As thoroughly decent and likable as our president is I know he isn't the kind of leader I can vote for to represent my libertarian beliefs because simply said he doesn't share many of them.
I'll say this, though. Most of the votes I have cast for third parties I have regretted. I certainly hope Simon wins in California.
He didn't talk about it that way. The person who posted it did that. I don't know why he didn't just put it in quotes.
Tuor
This is it exactly, IMO. I'm sure you've heard of the 30/30/40 idea in politics: 30% Democrat, 30% Republican, and 40% swing voters. Well, I think we're seeing the second thirty percent here: Bush can do no wrong, because he has to have a Very Good Reason for whatever he does...and then they go out and find a Very Good Reason, though not necessarily a true one.
I honestly once thought that only the liberals were mindlessly attached to their politicians, but I've come to see I was wrong. The concept that people don't want to admit they were wrong, even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, is more universal than I thought.
The Bush presidency has taught me a lot about human nature.
Tuor
What do you think a libertarian President (fat chance) would do with a Supreme Court appointment if the Senate was controlled by the Democrats, and they simply weren't going to accept anyone who had libertarian views? Keep on appointing people and having them rejected, presumably till his term in office ends? Hold his breath till he turns blue? Reagan appointed Kennedy, who you apparently think is no good, for instance, after Robert Bork was rejected by the Senate. And don't give a BS answer like "A Libertarian President wouldn't have the Democrats in control of the Senate". I know that's the kind of answer you'd like to give.
OK let's say for the sake of argument I'm the Libertarian President with as you say a Senate controlled by Communists (I mean Democrats). I would absolutely do the first thing you suggested, that is keep on appointing Libertarians and having them rejected until my term ends. Why, you ask? Because one of the greatest assets a president has is the bully pulpit. For the entire four year term, I would use that pulpit to exhort the American people to take up the cause of freedom. Every time the Democrats reject my nominees would be an opportunity to drive home the message that I don't expect them (the people) to settle for less from their Supreme Court justices and neither will I.
We Libertarians do things differently from the Republicans and the Democrats, very differently. If the people want more of the same then they should keep voting for Democrats and Republicans. I'm sure a lot of Democrats and Republicans will look at my answer to your question and think, "He's crazy. You can't leave a vacancy on the Supreme Court for 4 years because you're too stubborn to compromise." What they (and you) need to understand is this: there's a time to be stubborn and a time to compromise. The time to compromise is on tactics and strategy, something my party is wrestling with right now heading into the fall elections. For example, do we concentrate solely on low-level non-partisan offices like city councils or do we mix it up and keep going after statewide offices, knowing we can't win them? These are the kinds of questions we Libertarians can agree to disagree on without compromising our principles. There is never a time to compromise on principles.
Which is exactly what I would be doing if I nominate someone I feel will be confirmed by the Democrats knowing full well that this person will not advance the cause of liberty. Besides what's the hurry in putting another statist on the bench? Libertarians everywhere would be expecting me (rightly) to nominate people who share our views. That's the whole point of having power, to use it in furtherance of what you believe in. Nominating someone acceptable to the Democrats is not what I should do. If the people who elected me president in our example wanted me to support Democrat ideas, they wouldn't have voted for me in the first place. They would have voted for a Democrat or maybe a RINO.
Actually I'm not really active in the party at all besides doing this sort of thing which I love and I think is too often overlooked by people in my party. It seems too many Libertarians would rather argue amongst themselves about who is most philosophically pure than come on to a site like this and mix it up with people who think a little differently (though not all that much, in my opinion) than they do. Their loss, definitely.
I'm sorry to hear that you've regretted most of those votes. I won't vote for Simon because he won't make any substantial changes in this state, anymore than previous Republican governors did. If you disagree (as most people here probably do) with this assertion, please explain to me how we have been (or are) any better off or have any more freedom now than our parents or grandparents had in California. Are our taxes lower? No! Are we burdened with more regulations? Yes! Who is responsible for a great deal of these taxes and regulations? Republicans! Yes, this includes conservatives too.
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.