HAS OUR TIME COME? (Blame CATO/Libertarians for this election result)

CATO Institute by way of Heretical Ideas.com ^ | 10/24/2006 | Tom Traina

[Constantine XIII]

Moreover, most of these changes could be fixed without resorting to a 3rd party at all. It could all be done through vigrous primary campaigning.

Bad candidates are our own doing, not just Ken Mehlman's.

[rottweiller_inc]

why the trouble reconciling it? i said one or both parties would have to fail for a third party to have a shot (supported by the remaining party btw). I also said people are fed up with both parties right now because in reality we have one party, that's the weakness in a two party system that allows capitalism..and they are for sale. Regardless what adam smith said about capitalism he said in a context of a moral people not a people scrubed of any morality. But that's beside the point, which is the people are fed up with the status quo and they don't see a way out except to vote for the opposition even if they are liberal to drive out the the alleged conservatives. Their choices are vote for those they know to be opposing their views or not vote at all, and when the two parties are run by people of the same ilk it's a Hobbsons' choice

[Constantine XIII]

Primaries? :)

[x]

The GOP has mortally offended the libertarian/economic conservative portion of the electorate, while sucking up to the traditionalist/social conservative portion. The result is that they got their heads handed to them yesterday.

I'd want to see a numerical breakdown on that. Could it be that Republicans lost as many votes among traditional protectionist types and lunchbox conservatives as among free traders and enthusiastic free marketeers? That's probably true in the Midwest.

The problem may be that a lot of social conservatives weren't appeased by the administration's outreach to the evangelicals. Not everyone who's "socially conservative" is evangelical, just as not everyone who's "economically conservative" is a libertarian.

Those who deserted the party on the East Coast may have been "economic conservatives" or "fiscal conservatives" in some broad sense of the word, but far from libertarians.

[rottweiller_inc]

remember the republican national commitee getting involved between chaffee and laffee for just one?

[rottweiller_inc]

in the end we are the wolves circling the dying fire of both parties.

[PzLdr]

Don't think so. Lincoln, by winning the Civil War ended any argument that a state could secede. That premise was pretty much accepted from the Declaration of Independence up to the Civil War [Andy Jackson to the contrary]. Since the right to forcibly subdue a seceding state is not one of the enumerated Federal powers, it is logical to argue that the right of secession was reserved for the states by the 10th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment's due process clause made the states subject to proscriptions the Constitution placed on the Federal government. Another violation of the 10th.

[SamuraiScot]

They were however, vehemently opposed to a standing army.

I didn't say "a standing army." The point is whether liberals and Libertarians tend to be opposed to 1) the engagement of U.S. military might under almost any circumstances; 2) the masculine virtue of an effective army.

And the answer, much as I like many Libertarians, is yes.

[SamuraiScot]

It could not be used in its old sense of "politically free" or "intellectually free"

I'm saying that my kids are to be politically and intellectually free not to be hassled by an undisciplined adult trying to exercise his freedom, if you see what I mean. Things like waving pornography at them, performing indecent acts in front of them, molesting them. (This is why entrepreneurs raise their families in Greenwich, rather than Greenwich Village.)

The purpose of the state enforcing certain moral laws is to spare fathers the inconvenience of eliminating offenders on the spot, which many are otherwise willing to do. It's just very time-consuming and discourages economic activity.

[LexBaird]

Since the right to forcibly subdue a seceding state is not one of the enumerated Federal powers, it is logical to argue that the right of secession was reserved for the states by the 10th Amendment.

Not to turn this into a Civil War thread, but the power to put down domestic insurrection is in Article I, Sec. 8, and the States are forbidden to form a Confederacy under Article I, Sec. 10. The question as to whether the South could secede in an orderly, lawful manner never reached the courts before it resorted to armed insurrection. Following the unsuccessful attempt, secession was found to be unconstitutional by the USSC.

The 14th Amendment's due process clause made the states subject to proscriptions the Constitution placed on the Federal government. Another violation of the 10th.

This is where I was saying you were self contradictory. By definition, the 14th is PART of the Constitution. Since the 10th states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." [emphasis mine], the 14th just further prohibits some powers to the States. A later amendment can supersede or modify an earlier section, but it cannot "violate" it.

[tpaine]

The point is whether Libertarians tend to be opposed to 1) the engagement of U.S. military might under almost any circumstances; 2) the masculine virtue of an effective army.

And the answer, much as I like many Libertarians, is yes.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wrong answer..

Most libertarians on FR back the RLC position:

DEFENSE

11.1 U. S. military should be deployed only where there is a clear threat to vital U. S. interests and only with the consent of the U. S. Congress.

11.2 It is the duty of the federal government to provide a system to defend against missile attacks.

11.3 No branch of the military should be put in harm's way without a clear entrance and exit strategy and a goal, which when achieved, constitutes victory.

11.4 U. S military personnel should always be under U. S. command.

11.5 U. S. armed forces should be all-volunteer.

11.6 Military draft registration should be eliminated.

11.7 Foreign aid is often more harmful than helpful and should be curtailed.



REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
posted by Jim Robinson
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/721810/posts

[SamuraiScot]

Most libertarians on FR

. . . may not be the folks I'm referring to. I'm talking about Libertarians and liberals I've met and read generally.

Unsurprisingly, being a conservative, I agreed with the points on foreign policy you cited.

[dbehsman]

"When your taxes go up, don't complain."
I will not !! I believe in PAYING for what I buy, and not using my children's and grand-children's credit cards to do it like you "Cut Taxes Durng a War" repubs. This country has never cut taxes in the middle of a war until GWB got elected.

You supported the party of John Kerry. You abandoned the Republicans over what? A non-balanced budget? You put the security of the United States at risk over what? Because the Republicans didn't do enough about illegals? What do you think the deathocrats are going to do about illegals? I'm sure you'll like their ideas.

[dbehsman]

The border has been addressed.
Hardly. They approved the building of a wimpy fence over a small percentage of our border, but they failed to fund it.

Well I'm sure that the deathocrtas will do a much better job than the Republicans. I'm sure that you'll be happy with that. You have no reason to worry now.

[dbehsman]

Losertarians are worthless. Why should we bother chasing after a bunch of fickle ninnies?

[dbehsman]

I recommend that we Republicans cease and desist courting the loosertarian votes from now on. They are flaky, spoiled, short sighted distractions. I do not believe that they are worth our time.
Whom do you propose replacing them with?

Mexicans. ; )



I'm just kidding. I don't see what the point is in trying to chase after some fickle group of people who are never satisfied and constantly whining about how they're not being represented. The losertarians wanted Terry Schiavo dead. They got that and they still are not happy. The losertarians are pro abortion. The laws on the books are still pro abortion and the losertarians are still not happy. The losertarians complain about a tax cut, because it was done in the middle of a war. Why bother with them? More people are being born. The deathocrats and losertarians are aborting themselves out of existence, so it's only a matter of time.

[dbehsman]

The border has been addressed.
BWAAAAHAHAHAHA!!!! I've seen drunks living on heat grates who exhibit less disconnection from reality than this statement.

Well, I'm sorry that it wasn't enough for you Einstein. Tell me, since your so smart what is your plan? Putting up mine fields and machine gun nest all the way along the border? I'm sure that the deathocrats will go right along with that one. I'm sure you'll be happy with their decision.

Foley was out the day it was found out.
Foley was out back when Hastert was first warned about him? What was that guy in his seat up until last month? A clone? A hologram? An android?

Look, I understand that democRATS like yourself are upset that you couldn't get Hastert. Hastert didn't know about the instant messages until ABC sprung the October surprise. You should know that. I have actually read the E-mails that Foley sent, and they seemed pretty innocent. Why do you hate Hastert?

Getting rid of a bunch of whinny, fickle, cut and run isolationists, perpetually unhappy loosertarians would help the Republican party immensely.
Yep, we don't need any of them pesky voters. Why, look at how well we've done by chasing a bunch of them off just yesterday!

The losertarians are just not worth the time and/or effort. Allow me to illustrate to you how incredibly STUPID the libertarian wing of the Republican party has acted. I am one of those terrible Christian Conservatives that you like to fret about. I think it's O.K. to question the "gospel of Darwin". I think Saddam Hussein is going to get a more humane execution than Terry Schiavo did. I am anti-abortion. In other words, I am your nightmare that is residing in the Republican party. But, you know what? Tax cuts are important to me, but it's not life or death. A balanced budget is important to me, but it's not life or death. And you know, I think the Republican party has not acted strongly enough to advance the pro life cause. So therefore, I think maybe I should sit out the election in 2008 just so I can show the losertarians! What do you think of that? Makes lots of sense yeah?

The people who didn't vote, decided in the favor of the John Kerry party. Nice. And for what? Over a balanced budget? It's disgusting.

[Blackirish]

Losertarians are worthless

---

No whats worthless is the social right,fiscal liberal policies of W and his pals in the congress. Tuesday nite put an end to this nonsense once and for all.

[rivercat]

Well I'm sure that the deathocrtas will do a much better job than the Republicans. I'm sure that you'll be happy with that. You have no reason to worry now.

Yeah, right. My point is that if we had elected real conservatives, then maybe we'd have real border security. We had control, yet our worthless leadership let the dying MSM and the Dims define the issues.

[Aarchaeus]

Watch the vocal Libs suddenly become very, very quiet on this site.

Why? If this analysis is accurate, it just provides more evidence that the Republican "leadership" threw their support away by trying too hard to "move to the center". If they had had sense enough to remember what the election results looked like when Reagan was elected, and had any grasp of why, they would have done the sensible thing, and actually moved toward a more conservative platform. People who really value liberty would have had more reason to support them, and they would have had their traditional base of normal, sensible people supporting them wholeheartedly. This election result is solely the fault of the Republican politicians. The Libertarians and libertarians did what they usually do, and the conservatives did what they usually do. Anyone with one eye and bat's sense could have predicted that. Republican "leadership" has no one but themselves to blame for the losses.