Posted on 04/30/2009 7:33:36 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
Over a year ago, Mitt Romney was losing primaries to John McCain, and conservative pundits from Ann Coulter to Rush Limbaugh predicted the end of the GOP – Coulter went as far as promising she would campaign for Hillary Rodham Clinton if McCain became the party's nominee.
By November 2008, the GOP had embraced a nominee who had considered switching parties twice, had opposed tax cuts, and had failed to advance an aggressive shift in a foreign policy that left the GOP discredited in an area it had always trumped in.
It's not that McCain's willingness to reach across the aisle was condemnable. On the contrary, had McCain been able to do that as a conservative, he would've had more than tepid support from voters.
It also has less to do with the reasons conservatives disagreed with him when they should have found common ground. For example, McCain angered many conservatives when he opposed the federal ban on same-sex marriage.
Here in New Hampshire, congressional candidate Grant Bosse was among the few Republicans who understood the importance of leaving some decisions for adults to make with God and their state, not judges and the federal government.
It's precisely the reasons many couldn't support McCain – even conservatives who stuck by their guns and refused to send him to the White House – that merit serious reflection.
So far it's difficult to sense the fundamental message shift required for the GOP to make inroads in 2010 and 2012, but it seems no state is better poised to nurture these than the state of New Hampshire.
They key to doing this successfully? Allowing New Hampshire's libertarian spirit to infuse the GOP grassroots and allowing that to spread nationally.
(Excerpt) Read more at nashuatelegraph.com ...
Right, because having access to your money is absurd. My bad.
Doesn’t the fact that you realize that it makes sense for a bank to have use of the money you aren’t using tell you that most people would be willing to allow the bank to do the same with their money, so long as they get some interest? Not everyone keeps an eye on the stability of their bank, in fact most people don’t I would gather.
Under a free market, if you were only interested in keeping your money safe, but not having it loaned out (purely deposit banking), then the bank would charge YOU for the service. Most people recognize that the bank will pay them if they give up some of their liquidity so the bank may make loans. That should be entirely up to the depositor because it is the depositor’s money.
Yes, the new law was in fact deregulation.
But the "other than creating institutions too large to fail" is huge. It cleared the way for the government to come in and bail them out with our tax dollars.
Your candidate’s criticism of the Iraq War and calls to pull out the troops is what I think hurt him most among conservative voters.
Which causes all the malinvestment made during the boom/bubble period to be liquidated.
The free market wouldn’t allow that to happen. An unprofitable business would not get the funding it needs to stay alive. It would go bankrupt and the extreme bubble would never form.
***Have the fed contract the money supply***
So what I see here according to your logic is a period of growth when the money supply is expanding and a period of contraction when the money supply is falling. I don’t see how that is any more desirable than simply letting the free market direct savings and investment.
What you’re describing is central planning pure and simple. If the fed can manage the money and credit supply better and set interest rates more efficiently than the free market, why is it so incapable of setting the prices and production quotas of everything else?
Interesting discussion the two of you have going here.
What you have nearly described is the agreement between Conservatives which is called "Reagan Conservatism". What you have forgotten in your mix is that Reaganism is unquestionably built upon a (Goldwater) libertarian core foundation, modified by a strong recognition of the Judeo-Christian ethic.
It isn't just "fiscal conservatism" which is needed to appeal to libertarians, it is the strictures imposed upon governance by the Constitution that is so very necessary to build upon. Without that very basic cornerstone, all the rest comes tumbling down.
Likewise, the mono-culture inherent in the acceptance of the Judeo-Christian ethic is equally important - Without that cornerstone, that very basic understanding of right and wrong, the universal concept of justice that is necessary for any system of governance is simply lacking. Libertarianism becomes libertine, or devolves into anarchy, without the guiding Hand of our Creator.
Without BOTH, acting as the "Conservative conscience", there can be no Conservatism, and without Conservatism, there is no America.
Reagan had it right. Without the basic understanding that it all must, must, MUST start with a libertarian core surrounded by a Judeo-Christian culture, there will be *no* agreement between the conservative factions, because there is no foundation upon which they can build that agreement.
Once accepting that foundational core, which is the very heart of what all the conservative factions conserve, as handed down from our fathers, the various factions need only to vote as you describe- voting *for* candidates that not only support their own factional principles, but taking care that their candidate will also be palatable to the other factions and will uphold their principles as well.
This is why Conservative candidates are always asked how they are able to "uphold the 3 pillars of Conservatism"... because if they cannot, they are largely considered to be unelectable. This is also why "principle" must also be more important than "pragmatism". Without adherence to Conservative principles, one is asking one or more of the conservative factions to sit in the back of the bus. They will not do so. They will rebel, and such divisiveness causes primaries like the one we just experienced.
Making up your own terms and phrases does not change the Libertarian party platform and the laughable fact that they only have 226,000 registered members
That Reagan quote is from 1975 when the still tiny libertarian party was just starting, in fact I attended my first meeting that year. He also separated himself from the libertarians three sentences later so don’t confuse people with that quote by a Republican leader.
Ronald Reagan 1975:
“Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy.”
To think that he would be embracing all this 35 years later is ridiculous.
Libertarian Party Platform:
Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political borders”.
Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.
Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments.
Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.
Advertising drugs, prostitution, pornography; zero restrictions.
Military Strength; minimal capabilities.
Thanks.
And for the record dirtboy, anything I say is not meant in hostility. Sorry if it comes across like that.
It hasn’t come across like that at all, IMO it has been very civil, something we don’t have enough of nowadays.
The federal reserve holding interest rates so low is almost always the underlying cause. I think you can get a pretty good idea of where I stand on this economic collapse from my posts thus far.
ping of possible interest. Most of my posts are economy related in case you’re interested.
Constitutional republican government for one?
Ok that was a cheap shot, I'll admit.
How about letting adults make adult decisions for themselves...strong 2A positions, lower taxes, smaller limited government.
If you don't want to gamble, don't. Prohibitions and criminalizations don't work.
If you don't want to smoke pot, don't. Prohibitions and criminalizations don't work.
If you don't want to drink, don't. Prohibitions and criminalizations don't work.
If you don't want to go to church on Sunday, don't. Mandates and criminalizations don't work.
There is a huge difference there in the words "in the sense of a Party"
I know what the Libertarian Party platform is, you don't need to keep repeating it like a parrot.
In fact, what Reagan actually said proves the differentiation between "libertarianism" and "Libertarian", but you don't want to see the difference because your argument can't hold up without it. You are creating a straw man so you can knock it don.
Ron Paul is a "libertarian" who is anti-abortion, pro-border control far more so than most traditional Republicans.
Instead, you want to just replace the Godless nanny staters with God-fearing nanny staters and you are trying to make an argument to do it. But statism is statism and it is the antithesis of the freedoms that this country was founded on.
Translated: Then the party will regain all will and desire to tell everyone how to live their lives just like the Liberals do.
So are at least 50% of big "L" Libertarians. There's a small "in" crowd that makes sure it never gets to a popular vote within the party.
jimt, former Harris County Chair (Houston & environs).
The Libertarian party is a joke and the more people learn about it’s platform the less we will hear from it’s tiny collection of 226,000 registered members.
Therein lies the big divide between libertarian and Republican.
We believe in 100% ownership of self. If you want to kill yourself by drugs, risky sexual behavior, or whatever your poison de jure is, we don't care. Just don't hurt anyone else doing it. Others are fully justified in killing you if you cut up rough in public. That this includes border jumpers violating private property Rights is equally lost on them.
Nanny Staters don't want you to smoke, engage in sex they don't personally like, want one Religion- Theirs, only approve of their brand of free speech, etc...
The classic Demopublican/Republicrat conundrum. You try and reign them in, get them to agree to go back to a more Constitutional government... All of a sudden you are a 1%-er, unappeasable, irrelevant while still costing them elections, "liberaltarian"/"loserdopian", or some other equally idiotic pejorative.
A pox on both their Houses.
If they are that small and insignificant, what are you worried about? They could hardly be costing you elections now could they?
Endowed by Our Creator.
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.