Posted on 11/20/2012 7:21:32 PM PST by Absolutely Nobama
Good points and well written, no doubt about it.
—HOWEVER—
Where was this attitude from the Liberaltarians when it was needed the most, say 18 days ago ?
Don’t get me wrong. I have many libertarian beliefs. Like I mentioned in the article, I’m all for repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments. I’m all for auditing, if not abolishing, the Federal Reserve. I also believe the freer the markets, the freer the people.
At the same time, I don’t believe Big “L” Libertarianism works. It may be great on fiscal issues, but it’s lousy on social and defense issues.
Thanks for that.
Where was this attitude from the Liberaltarians when it was needed the most, say 18 days ago ?
Look at Romney's record and tell me what exactly is there that a libertarian would vote *FOR*. Libertarians were in the same place I was - voting for what they believe in - Standing upon principle.
Romney had *NOTHING* for me to vote *FOR*, and the "well, he's better than the other guy," meme just doesn't cut it. He isn't better - He's the same dang thing - A big government globalist.
Y'all gotta stop this stuff. Conservatives have always stood on principle and voted their conscience. If you want my vote so bad, and you want the libertarians vote so bad, then support candidates that we can vote for.
I predicted this end long ago - The outcome was self-evident. Unfortunately, folks here are too politically aware, while the lion's share of the country isn't. All this expediency and pragmatism crap that works to buffalo folks here doesn't translate down to the base, because they aren't paying attention.
They go about there work-a-day lives until about the last month or so, and they already have principles they need to see - If they don't see them, why the hell would they bother to vote? And that is exactly what happened yet again.
So stop whining about people not 'buying your product'... Your product sucks. That's why they aren't buying. Who in their right mind would vote for a liberal who merely says he has the right to the Conservative mantle? The Republicans are not Conservative anymore, and many folks ain't buying that they are. Whose fault is that? (pssst: The customer is always right.)
At the same time, I don’t believe Big “L” Libertarianism works. It may be great on fiscal issues, but it’s lousy on social and defense issues.
The very same can be said of the Christians, who, given their own party, would also represent excesses which are just as unhealthy (theocracy, social justice, big-government largess, etc...). Look at Huckabee. He was lifted up exclusively by the Christians. No other Conservative faction can stand the sight of him... Yet the Christians came out for him in droves.
The same can be said of ANY conservative faction. They ALL will go to unhealthy places if left to their own devices. Defense conservatism winds up logically in military tyranny... fiscal conservatism winds up in bitter uncaring austerity. So look at the board in your own eye before criticizing the libertarians simply because they wind up in anarchy. No faction, unchecked by the others, is right, or Right.
And for the most part, the libertarians that inhabit this board tend to be displaced Goldwater Republicans... IOW, conservative libertarians. When the Bushes threw them under the bus, where would you suppose they would go?
I’ll be the first to admit Romney sucked as a candidate. I fought his followers during the primaries, and that little stunt his RINO handlers pulled at the convention was abominable. I voted for him only to get rid of Obama, to be sure.
At the same time, throwing away votes on losers like Gary Johnson and Virgil Goode, or writing in RuPaul only helped our Least Favorite Kenyan Communist in office. Staying home did the same.
“The very same can be said of the Christians, who, given their own party, would also represent excesses which are just as unhealthy....”
Like what ? Opposing homosexual “marriage” ? Not bowing to Shariah Law ? Not becoming secular humanists ? What “excesses” would you be referring to ? That sounds like the Cultural Marxism of the left to me.
“The same can be said of ANY conservative faction. They ALL will go to unhealthy places if left to their own devices.”
Really ? Did that happen under Coolidge ? Under Reagan ? They were Conservatives and that didn’t happen.
“Defense conservatism winds up logically in military tyranny.”
Um...no, it doesn’t. It results in a safer nation. It’s leftism that breeds tyranny. (Nazi Germany, the USSR, Cuba, Fascist Italy, Vietnam, North Korea, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, etc.)
‘Lose at all costs’ RINO File.
Lose, lose, lose. That’s all the weak-willed RINOs know how to do.
They’re not going to be happy until we tell them to shove it and form a third party. Obviously, this won’t do us a whit of good since third parties don’t win squat. We could end up with decades of leftist rule because of it.
The only way out is taking back the Republican party.
Unless of course, this end was predictable - which it was... and it was predictable for the reasons I have already laid out. IF this was a predictable end, then it is YOU who threw the vote away. It is YOU, mindlessly aping the "Anybody but Obama!" spiel, and shouting down those with reason. who correctly claimed that the only way forward was through a third party, because the Republican candidate was gonna LOSE. It is YOU who sealed our fate, by continuing to support that which is untenable...
How does all that accusation feel? I really don't mean to accuse !YOU!... I just wanted you to feel that... Because that is what is being dished out to the libertarians and principled conservatives. You may freely edit my comments to replace 'you' with 'all y'all', but the point remains the same.
You really need to look at this stuff from the other way around, because your method doesn't work. IT IS A MYTH, which starts with the assumption that Conservative votes belong to the Republican... That has NEVER been true - but is especially so now, when the majority of Conservatives stand outside of the Republican party. They have no obligation to vote for the big rhinestone "R". And neither do Libertarians.
You can have a sore butt about it all you want, but the outcome will not change. You must provide a candidate they can vote *FOR*. They vote for their principles, so a candidate who doesn't have those principles, will not win, regardless of which fear mongering you may apply, and regardless of the boogey-man you may point to.
[roamer_1:] “The very same can be said of the Christians, who, given their own party, would also represent excesses which are just as unhealthy....
Like what ? Opposing homosexual “marriage” ? Not bowing to Shariah Law ? Not becoming secular humanists ? What “excesses” would you be referring to ? That sounds like the Cultural Marxism of the left to me.
I gave you three examples: theocracy, social justice, and big-government largess, which Christians ARE currently succumbing to. Again, look to Huckabee. Look to the Christian Left... Christians are buying what they stand for.
That is *not* a hack against Christianity. I am a Christian, and I have devoted much ink hereon to the defense of the Judeo-Christian Ethic. My observation comes from trying to know and understand that faction within conservatism as a whole. What makes Conservative Christians relatively immune to those pitfalls is not Christianity itself, but rather (and oddly enough, considering this conversation) it is their acceptance of libertarian concepts that keep them from fouling the nest. Enough federalism has rubbed off on them that they can see the truth that their Christian forefathers gave us through Protestantism, and in the establishment of this great country.
Your view on this matter is highly myopic. Even a cursory examination of history will reveal plenty of reasons why the Christians ALONE cannot drive the bus. A good portion of our founding was to escape religious tyranny (pssst!: by Christians!!).
That is not to say that one must blithely accept homo marriage and sharia law as part of the fabric of an inclusive United States, as you accuse. It does mean that one must stay within the lines of our federalist system in order to fight these things... and especially so in order to win - Because the other factions of Conservatism will not allow (elect) it otherwise.
[roamer_1:] The same can be said of ANY conservative faction. They ALL will go to unhealthy places if left to their own devices.
Really ? Did that happen under Coolidge ? Under Reagan ? They were Conservatives and that didn’t happen.
I am speaking directly toward the factions within Conservatism, and *not* Conservatism itself. I cannot speak of Coolidge, but Reagan, as the father of modern Conservatism is the quintessential answer: Reagan was not a factional conservative. He held ALL the principles of Conservatism to be true, and since he held all, he is a poor example to use for your point...
He certainly DID recognize the factional nature of Conservatism - That while true Conservatism is monolithic, it's adherents are not. Research 'the Conservative three-legged stool' to understand. That 'three-legged stool' is still there and can never go away. We don't all serve ALL of the principles of Conservatism, and those factions are exactly the point.
[roamer_1:] Defense conservatism winds up logically in military tyranny.
Um...no, it doesn’t. It results in a safer nation. It’s leftism that breeds tyranny. (Nazi Germany, the USSR, Cuba, Fascist Italy, Vietnam, North Korea, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, etc.)
Ummm.... yes, it does. Again, quit taking offense and expand your view: History is rife with examples. Tyrants cannot survive without control of the military, to include the ones you point to... But that story is ages old. Long before 'leftism' ever reared it's ugly head. And quite often, the worst of the worst come up through the military establishment to assume power.
And that is why our fathers, when finally deciding that a federal standing army was unavoidable, at the same time, established the Bill of Rights to try to curb the eventual coercion (libertarian truth) they knew a standing army could and would enable.
And again, that FACTION is only made immune to it's own nature through the libertarian FACTION's principles against coercion.
It is vitally important to understand what conservative virtue it is that the libertarians hold - It is that stand against coercion that is absolutely precious - Every bit as precious as the principles the other factions hold, because that principle is what keeps all the other factions in check. It is absolutely vital to the Conservative conscience - Equal, to me, to the imperatives held within the Judeo-Christian Ethic, and quite compatible to the teachings within the Holy Bible.
“Unless of course, this end was predictable - which it was... and it was predictable for the reasons I have already laid out. IF this was a predictable end, then it is YOU who threw the vote away.”
Wrong. Neither Virgil Goode nor Gary Johnson had a snowball’s chance in Hell of winning a thing. The main goal was to get rid of Obama. Was I thrilled with Romney ? Absolutely not. I fought like hell against him during the primary, but it wasn’t in the cards.
“IT IS A MYTH, which starts with the assumption that Conservative votes belong to the Republican...”
Conservatives vote for Republicans. This is why the vote totals for the paleocon Constitution party and the Liberaltarian party is counted in the thousands, not the millions the Republican party receives. Now of course, We the Conservatives are never 100% thrilled with the GOP and its wimpy Establishment, but when all is said and done, it’s still the party of Reagan.
“You must provide a candidate they can vote *FOR*.”
Can’t argue with that. Flip-flopping RINOs like Romney are not the answer, just like Rupaul is not the answer.
“I gave you three examples: theocracy, social justice, and big-government largess, which Christians ARE currently succumbing to.”
Then they are not Christians. Social “justice” has nothing to do with Christianity. The 70% of my “fellow” Jews who voted for Obama have no business whatsoever calling themselves Jews, either.
One cannot be a leftist and believe in God. 2+2=5.
Neither did Romney. And that's a FACT now.
Goode, Johnson, and our own Tom Hoefling (EternalVigilance), who was my choice, suffered from lack of exposure. Had ONLY FreeRepublic given any one of them that exposure, this could have been a horse race.
But the Republican fanbois moved in, as always, and shouted down any attempt to offer an alternative to Romney.
Romney's fate was written in stone from the very start. I said it then, and it is proved now. The harm is in kicking the dead horse, preventing any other from rising. There is no harm in trying mightily for an alternative when 'Glory Boy' ain't gonna win anyway... And if one can get the base fired up for a real Conservative, who knows what may happen? With TWO liberal candidates vying for the same middle, it is quite likely that with the Conservative base, a Conservative could have won in at least a plurality.
All y'all are going to see - The Conservative base has not been turned out for the last three elections, and even with BushII's first election, his support was not what it could have been... No one I know was 'fired up' for Bush. There was a bunch of us who figured that apple didn't fall far from the horse - And that view, it turns out, was exactly true.
But now there are more Conservatives OUTSIDE the Republican party than in it, and this election will hemorrhage even more out of the GOP.
If the GOP does not turn HARD right (a sign will be the removal and replacement of leadership wholesale with Conservatives) it will be doomed. Look at the whigs, because what happened to them is happening to the Republicans right now.
Conservatives vote for Republicans.
No, Conservatives vote for Conservatives. That they happen to be Republican is incidental, or the GOP would have won this election hands down with a mandate.
it’s still the party of Reagan.
ROTFLMAO!! It is LIGHT YEARS away from Reagan, and your defaming of civil libertarians is all the proof that is needed. That is not all the proof, but it is the most glaring, because the willingness to coerce allows for absolutely anything else...
The GOP is no longer Pro-Life. The GOP is no longer for FAIR TAX, The GOP now believes in Keynesian economics instead of Austrian Capitalism, and it seems he GOP is only strong on defense for it's power and capabilities in nation building for the purposes of globalism. the GOP is big government all the way with a BIG desire for open immigration and amnesty to boot...
That is *NOT* the party of Reagan. Not at all. FAR from it.
AND WHAT, pray tell, beside the 'better than them' mentality (without any evidence toward that claim) sets the Republican party apart from the Democrats? What exactly is there that Conservatives would vote *FOR*?
Liberalism is growing by leaps and bounds and not by any merit. It lives and thrives because there is no opposition to it. Wake up and smell the coffee d00d. You are getting played.
“Lookie here, Larry. I have charts and graphs. Elect me President!”
The only thing it elevated was the disgust of GHW Bush with conservatives who were stupid enough to buy into Perot’s lies.
The guy made all his money OFF the government.
Virgil Goode was a former lib Dim who now claims to be a paleocon. Thanks, but no thanks. Gary Johnson was a great governor, but his foreign policy was too much like RuPaul’s, which no sane individual finds palatable.
Here’s the thing you fail to understand: Third party candidates simply can’t win. It’s useless to even try and voting for a third party candidate is taking your vote and setting it on fire.
As Ronald Reagan said:
“Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people? A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers. I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of Conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.”
We don’t need to become paleocon wimps like Pat Buchanan. We don’t need to be moderates like Romney. We don’t need to be a bunch of Jew hating 9/11 Truthers like RuPaul and his Stormfront Troopers. We need to be Conservative Republicans. As history has shown with Coolidge, Reagan, and Gingrich, it’s a winner, and an unstoppable one at that.
Yeah, right, whatever. Maybe you should look at their records rather than Republican talking points. That's what a Conservative would do. And whatever you think is beside the point, as I didn't vote for either one.
The only thing here that is funny (and it is downright hilarious) is your apparent distaste for Goode's 'lib dim' history, while at the same time being a good little republican, and actually voting *FOR* one who is unarguably far more liberal than Goode has EVER been. IOW, Goode is, and always has been, FAR to the right of Romney... Yet you would rather vote for Romney?
ROTFLMAO!! That's just the ticket. Keep on voting those liberals into power in the Republican party - that's gotta be the best way ever to stop those liberal democrats! [/sarc]
Here's a clue: 'Democrats' are not the enemy. LIBERALS are! The fight is Conservative v. Liberal. HOW IN THE HE!! do you expect to win that fight by turning the Republican party even MORE liberal? How do you possibly strengthen Conservatives by voting *FOR* liberalism?
Again I will declare that liberalism is not winning on it's own merit - it is winning because THERE IS NO OPPOSITION! *NOTHING* OPPOSES IT! And whose fault is that? Whose fault is it that the GOP is a bunch of mewling cowards bent upon groveling compromise?
Here’s the thing you fail to understand: Third party candidates simply can’t win. It’s useless to even try and voting for a third party candidate is taking your vote and setting it on fire.
Statistically true, but not true in fact. The 'Bull Moose' party won. and so did the Republicans in their infancy. And better to set my ballot on fire than to vote *FOR* a liberal who has, for all of his history, been opposed to Conservatism and Reagan particularly.
I will lend my support to the Republicans no longer. EVER. And there are MANY like me. That is why the Republican party is shrinking. It has been hemorrhaging Conservatives for decades. All those folks will inevitably wind up somewhere, and I will state without reservation that I will see the rise of a Conservative 3rd party within my lifetime. And that party will be the end of the Republicans.
And if I am wrong in that, it is of little matter, because I would far rather lend my shoulder to that weight, and strive for that end, than I would to continue to vote for the compromise of everything I hold dear.
As Ronald Reagan said:
Yeah, right - Too bad Republicans don't DO what Reagan said. And having revealed that you know what Reagan said, Why the he!! would you compromise those principles he spoke of in voting Romney into power? Don't you see that you are directly in opposition to what he said? Because IF Republicans actually DID stand on principle, they would have no problem keeping folks like me in the fold. And, I might add, Reagen left the Democrats for just about the same reasons that I left the Republicans.
We don’t need to become paleocon wimps like Pat Buchanan. We don’t need to be moderates like Romney. We don’t need to be a bunch of Jew hating 9/11 Truthers like RuPaul and his Stormfront Troopers. We need to be Conservative Republicans.
First of all, Romney is no 'moderate'. the Bushes are Baker Moderates. Romney is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, and he has always been so.
And secondly, The Buchananites and Paulites were part of the Reagan Coalition. It is a telling thing that big-tent NeoCons want everyone but them - They are demonized for a reason: They represent the very principles that would fetter the NeoCons. What you describe is NeoConservatism.
Reagan Conservatism is not 'one monolithic thing'. Reagan Conservatism is composed of three distinct factions that do not agree. Their interests are diverse with respect to each other.
Of those factions, I am a SoCon... I am more concerned with Social Conservatism than anything else. But I am more than that. As a Reagan Conservative, I look to vote those socially conservative principles... But rather than voting for Huckabee, as the lion's share of the Christian Right was happy to do, my vote is tempered by concern for my fellows in Reagan's Coalition.
I picked Hunter instead, because Hunter not only stood for those native SoCon principles I need to see, he also stood for every principle that my fellows needed to see too.
That isn't quite right - I studied those factions years ago, and came to adopt true Conservatism - That being that I carry all the principles of all the factions inherently. I believe in all of them. I am a rock-ribbed Reaganite. But the point I illustrated remains, as do those factional conservatives. and they ARE conservatives, even though they only adhere to the principles of their particular faction... That they are of any faction of Conservatism makes them Conservative.
THAT is what the 'big tent' was when it was first coined. It was about bringing all those conservative factions under one mantle... one big tent. It was about compromise between conservatives, not the compromise of RINOS. And that compromise between conservatives was *not* a compromise of any principles.
NeoCons are interested in compromising principle. They may allow all conservatives on the bus, but in order to ride the bus, they must give something up.
On the Reagan Coalition bus, Conservatives ride for free. They need not give up anything. And since a Reaganite is driving the bus, representing all of the principles of all of the factions, there is no 'back of the bus'... Every faction is driving the bus.
Which bus are you on?
I used to be a Paultard, so I am very familiar with RuPaul’s record. It stinks. What Comrade Paul used to do is load up bills with all kinds of pork and then vote against it when he was sure it would pass.
As far as paleocon stupidity, I’m familiar with that as well. In 2000 I voted for Pat Buchanan, not George W. Bush. Needless to say it was an ignorant decision on my part. Had Buchanan beaten the Powerball-like odds against him and became president, we’d all be speaking Arabic after 9/11/01. National defense is kinda important, don’tcha think ?
Please reread what I wrote about Romney in this article. He sucked as a candidate. We’ve been over this over and over again.
Ron Paul hated Reagan Conservatism. Pat Buchanan has turned into some sort of isolationist peacenik weirdo. Thanks, but no thanks.
By the way, it’s impossible for me to be a “neocon”. I’ve been a Conservative my whole life.
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.