Obama, Get Your Ass Back to DC & Deal w/ Terrorism

[BSB]

 

[Xavier_Onassis]

Libertarians favor leaving the abortion issue up to the woman in question, favor fewer controls on drugs, particularly marijuana, and oppose giving aid to religious affiliated groups. The Republicans generally take an opposing stand on each of these.

[Universe Prince]

Given the evidence I think I can be very sure. The evidence being local and national elections over the past say ... 75 years?

[...]

I think the question for Libertarians is whether or not they are willing to compromise in order to get the majority of their views put into action by a party that can actually do it.

Neither major political party will actually work to do that. The evidence being state and national politics over the past, say, 75 years.

Isn't 75 percent better than nothing?

It would be great if we could get it. At best the ideas get lip-service and are promptly forgotten the day after the election. That ain't 75%.

Isn't it worth keeping the statists out of power and keeping them from destroying the America you and I love?

That assumes that the Republicans are not also statists with agendas that could ruin the country. And that is an incorrect assumption.

[Plane]

The Libertarian party has an important role to play even if it never acheives power.

By educateing the public at large it can get parts of its agenda to be well known and demanded by the public.

There are a lot of minor partys they serve as labratorys of thought free of the burden of leadership responsibility.

Incumbents seem preoccupied with job security.

[Rich]

>>Neither major political party will actually work to do that. The evidence being state and national politics over the past, say, 75 years.<<

Wouldn't you agree that both parties have change their positions, or added or dropped different positions over the life time of the parties?

>>It would be great if we could get it. At best the ideas get lip-service and are promptly forgotten the day after the election. That ain't 75%.<<

Being cynical isn't going to affect change. Neither is sitting on the margin.

>>That assumes that the Republicans are not also statists with agendas that could ruin the country. And that is an incorrect assumption.<<

Fair enough. But don’t Libertarians agree with much of the Republican platform? At least much more than they agree with democrats? I suggest that you would be welcomed into the party and given that Republicans are much saner and open to discussion you would do much more good there. Hell, you could even give yourselves a cute nick name like the "Smarter Than You Caucus."

All kidding aside, you'd be doing the country more good inside than you have been outside.

[Plane]

"Smarter Than You Caucus."

All kidding aside, you'd be doing the country more good inside than you have been outside.

hahahahahahaha!

Excellent thinking!

Republicans really could use the new blood and the new ideas, but would the Libertarians get enough "half- a- loaf" to make it worth their time?

[Rich]

>>Republicans really could use the new blood and the new ideas, but would the Libertarians get enough "half- a- loaf" to make it worth their time?<<

Agreed. As far as timing goes, now would be the perfect time. There are hundreds of thousand (more?) people who used to be Republicans who have stepped out of the tent until someone comes along to make the changes they are calling for. Sarah Palin is a perfect example. She's seen as a real Conservative. An outsider who can right the ship. Libertarians could do the same. Fresh ideas, fresh faces, The GOP needs them now more than ever.

As for half a loaf, I say put your country first, not your party.

[Stray Pooch]

>>Republicans really could use the new blood and the new ideas, but would the Libertarians get enough "half- a- loaf" to make it worth their time?<<

Agreed. As far as timing goes, now would be the perfect time. There are hundreds of thousand (more?) people who used to be Republicans who have stepped out of the tent until someone comes along to make the changes they are calling for. Sarah Palin is a perfect example. She's seen as a real Conservative. An outsider who can right the ship. Libertarians could do the same. Fresh ideas, fresh faces, The GOP needs them now more than ever.

As for half a loaf, I say put your country first, not your party.

Sarah Palin has both marginalized herself and been successfully marginalized by the left-wing media.  She has about as much chance of getting elected in a general election as I have.  Had McCain not chosen her as his running mate, she might be an excellent up-and-comer.  But as it is, she was not ready for prime time and Obama was.  I do not look to her as the future of the Republican party - at least not a successful Republican party.  She isn't Presidential  - she's cute and stupid.  Not really stupid - just successfully portrayed that way - and the center will look at her as a living Barbie doll.  She is tippping her burning ambition far more than Hillary did, and HRC was putting out billboards.  But HRC, whatever her politics, is a highly-accomplished, very well qualified woman who could run for President with the best of them.  It sounds astounding to say this about a Clinton, but the Dems picked style over substance in the past primary season.  Sarah, in spite of her TV appearances, her best selling book and her moose-hunting governorship just won't get past the grind of a national election cycle.  She's a;ready fatally compromised and she can blame her erstwhile mentor for that.

Sarah's too cute, Romney's too Mormon, Huckabee's too religious and Paul's too fringe.  I have no idea how the Republicans can capitalize on the opportunity that the ghastly tactical error the Dems made in electing a doctored photograph to office gives us.  I doubt that we will.  We have a backlash going for us.  The Dems have inertia. 

[Xavier_Onassis]

Sarah Palin: a female Dan Quayle. But without a wealthy family like Quayle's to back her. Or perhaps she is a female, poor, and less intelligent and informed version of Ross Perot.

[BSB]

Moose catcher is as far as Palin goes in the lower 48. She could have waited 20 more years and she'd still have been unelectable on a national level. 

[Universe Prince]

Wouldn't you agree that both parties have change their positions, or added or dropped different positions over the life time of the parties?

I would agree with that. But both parties have also held in practice the basic position that a strong central government is needed to control things from the top down. Which is decidedly not a libertarian position.

Being cynical isn't going to affect change. Neither is sitting on the margin.

True, but if you want to change the situation, you need to start from an honest assessment of the situation.

But don’t Libertarians agree with much of the Republican platform?

In word, yes. In practice, no.

I suggest that you would be welcomed into the party and given that Republicans are much saner and open to discussion you would do much more good there.

Welcomed into the party, yes. Open to discussion, I am not so sure. I have had too many conversations where mentioning libertarian ideas results in being told basically there is no point in discussion libertarian ideas because they're all unworkable, impractical and libertarians don't understand the way the "real world" works anyway. I'm sure you've seen it here and elsewhere. Less restrictive immigration: Oh you want to give every illegal a free citizenship and to ignore the borders. End the "war on drugs": Oh, you want drug addiction and violence to overtake the entire country. Let homosexuals marry: oh you want to ruin the American family. Fight abuse of the law and abuse by law enforcement: Oh, you want to protect criminals and leave innocent people at the mercy of murderers and child rapists. And on and on. Some segments of the Republican Party seem to be coming around on ending the "war on drugs" but not party leadership.

All kidding aside, you'd be doing the country more good inside than you have been outside.

Maybe. I don't see why I need to be part of the Republican Party to influence change. Frankly, I do not believe what needs to happen is for people like me to try to be part of the Republican Party and persuade it to change for us. What needs to happen, imo, is the Republican Party should come to people like me and persuade us that it is a party worthy of our joining it.

If you want my help to change your party, you've got to give me reason to believe it can change and that fighting for change will be worth my time. Right now, I don't see it. If I had seen the Republican leader respond to the Tea Parties by saying "Yes, we've been wrong, the Tea Partiers are right," and by taking serious principled stands on things like health care, rather than just waiting for the Democrats to make them a deal, I might be more inclined to accept your argument, Rich. But that didn't happen. The Republican Party did not start to change its ways. It just did what it always does, talk one set of principles and practice another.

I am reminded of the scene in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" where Sidney Poitier's character is arguing with his father. He says,

You don't know how I feel, what I think. And if I tried to explain it the rest of your life you will never understand. You are 30 years older than I am. You and your whole lousy generation believes the way it was for you is the way it's got to be. And not until your whole generation has lain down and died will the dead weight of you be off our backs! You understand, you've got to get off my back!

And I don't direct that at you, Rich. I mean the statist Republican leadership has got to get out of the way because they are not going to change the party. They are not going to now start practicing and fighting for libertarian ideas. They have to get out of the way because they don't understand the libertarian ideas that are finding a foothold at the base of the party and with the younger voters. However much they may have verbally supported such ideas, they have always, when push came to shove, defaulted to a statist, big government position. Until you get people like that out of the way, the Republican Party will not change its ways.

I cannot get those people out of the way. They look at me the same way you do. I'm just fringe to them. Crazy libertarians, who cares what they think. You've got to tell the leadership to get out of the way. They are not going to listen to me. It's up to you and people like you to make the leadership understand they are dead weight dragging the party down.

[BT]

I'm going to have to disagree with you, Pooch.

I think Palin is as ready for the presidency as Obama was/is.

I think you will see that her grassroots support is far stronger than the MSM will lead you to believe.

I think there is just as compelling a story in coming from the PTA to the pinnacle, from housewife to White House as there is in Obama's journey. And her story has far more substance and detail. We will find out come Iowa, if she chooses to run, whether the people let the press and comedians pick their candidates or whether they believe their own eyes and ears.

It amazes me that the whole dumb barbie doll slur is allowed by to stand. Because it implies that  a woman's worth is based on her looks and her intelligence is based on whether she is of the aristocracy or sponsored by them. State Universities are sub par.

2012 is a ways off. 2010 will be a good harbinger of things to come. Don't be surprised if Obama has a challenger from the dem side. Palin will be a player in 2012 and she will help set the tone of the election. IMHO

[Plane]

How many people share in the insult , when Palin is insulted?

All pretty women ?

All rural dwellers?

All State coledge graduates?

All hunters?

All parents of teens , handicapped or just plain parents?

[Religious Dick]

The Republicans and Democrats are two cheeks of the same ass. Just as well, I doubt our politics in the future are going to be driven by ideology so much as they're going to be going to be driven by events.

The bottom line is, were broke. At some point in the not too distant future our creditors are going to be refusing to loan us any more money, and what happens then? Where does the money come from to finance all our public services, welfare programs and our big, shiny military? And how are people who rely on those things going to react when the plug gets pulled?

You already have squabbling factions divided up by ideological interests, ethnic interests, economic interests, cultural interests etc. When the going gets tough, tempers are going to be flaring up. And these are things that both parties have been loath to address. Our largest problems are taboo to discuss - how do you solve problems you can't even talk about? At some point, you run out of options.

As for the Libertarians, they are an utter waste of time. Libertarianism demands a confluence of circumstances that plain never conflate in the wild. You don't get to economic liberty by opening your borders to populations with a habit of voting themselves public services. You don't get less government by attacking the relationships that people have relied upon as an alternative to government. You don't get liberty by undermining the institutions that have secured us any liberty at all. Realistically, civilization has been a story of people giving up their individual liberties in the interests of maintaining civil society, not by asserting their individuality to the point of making civil society impossible.

[Stray Pooch]

I'm going to have to disagree with you, Pooch.

I think Palin is as ready for the presidency as Obama was/is.

I think you will see that her grassroots support is far stronger than the MSM will lead you to believe.

I think there is just as compelling a story in coming from the PTA to the pinnacle, from housewife to White House as there is in Obama's journey. And her story has far more substance and detail. We will find out come Iowa, if she chooses to run, whether the people let the press and comedians pick their candidates or whether they believe their own eyes and ears.

It amazes me that the whole dumb barbie doll slur is allowed by to stand. Because it implies that  a woman's worth is based on her looks and her intelligence is based on whether she is of the aristocracy or sponsored by them. State Universities are sub par.

2012 is a ways off. 2010 will be a good harbinger of things to come. Don't be surprised if Obama has a challenger from the dem side. Palin will be a player in 2012 and she will help set the tone of the election. IMHO

By Prime Time I was not referring to the Presidency.  Sarah, having been a governor, is probably better prepared to lead than Obama.  I was referring to the campaign trail, where you have to convince people you can lead.  She lost credibility when she stared at Charlie Gibson like an idiot when he mentioned the Bush Doctrine.  If you are going on television against professional (and in the case of Republican candidates generally hostile) newsmen you had better be prepared - and Palin simply wasn't.  She was like a baseball prospect brought up from the minors too early.  The team was desperate.  They hurt a good prospect.

The Barbie doll image helps Democrats.  They will use it to good effect.  Republican women, they will say, may ACT liberated, but they all really just want to look pretty for their men and really can't think very well.  It is one of the not-very-well-kept secrets of the feminist movement that women use the negative stereotypes, double standards and general misogynism of our society against women to gain power just like men do.  Liberals do not feel bound by honor to maintain their own standards in a political battle.  Cries of sexism are only supposed to be used by "victims" - and Republicans are manifestly not victims.

As to the people choosing their candidates, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Republicans picked Sarah.  They picked McCain.  Much good it did them.  I am not really interested in who wins the primaries, except as it pertains to who wins the general election.  If Sarah is the candidate, she will not win.  It is always possible that a candidate can turn things around in an election cycle.  But generally, it goes from good to bad - not the other way around.