Free Republic

A reminder: My call for unity is not a call to support Arlen Spector type RINOs.

The conventional approach would be to return your namecalling, and move on. But that’s the coward’s way out.

Instead, I’ll remind you for the 3rd or 4th time I am not a member of the Libertarian party, not have I ever been.

I find myself wondering if you’re even a Conservative. Democrats have used strategies to drive wedges between the groups which make up the Republican party in every election since 1996. They were particularly successful in 2008.

The focus of my recent messages on FR has to be remind people who the real enemies are. A factionalized Republican party will not be successful. This matters. This matters more than your petty beefs with libertarian-leaning Republicans.

With Obama as President, we’re to the point that every loss kills our nation a bit more. Some losses kill our nation a lot more. Health care would be one like that if it passes.

In this environment, being unwelcoming to those who almost completely agree with you is far from rational.

Whats' the solution?

1) Money
2) Votes
3) Stop expecting liberal progressives to be intellectually honest about contentious issues.

Winning is their priority. It must become ours.

Thanks for posting this.

Understanding Dems’ stance on Health Care is more about psychology than politics. That’s why they’re willing to throw away their majority to get healthcare.

Conflicting psychologies, or rather, pathologies, exist in the Democratic party about Health Care Reform.

In one case, the genuine do-gooder believes this is vital and will help people. This type of Dem is merely deluded, but he’s helping the worse kind of Dem.

Another kind of Dem doesn’t care. He’s a psychopath. He wants Health Care Reform because of the power and wealth that will be his and his party’s by controlling one-sixth of the economy.

The third type of Dem hopes to be a career politican. He wants a lifetime career, so he’s resistant to Obama’s Heallth Care package.

The play would seem to be to appeal to the 1st and 3rd groups to help neutralize the Dem coalition.

The 1st group needs to hear, whether it’s true or not, that Republicans are very willing to talk Health Care reform if the current bill can be shunted aside. Not many will believe it even if it’s demonstrably true, but it might be enough to keep Obama from getting his bill. If Republican leadership makes promises on this though, they are honor-bound to hold real and substantive talks with the Dem “true believers” who end their support for the current bill.

The second group is a lost cause. The only solution is money and votes to remove them from office.

The 3rd group, the ones who are professional politicians, needs assurance of a different kind. One solution might be to state that if they immediately and permanently end their support for Obama’s Health Care bill, the RNC will not finance commercials attacking their “flipflops” on this one issue. I’m sure there are other reasonable solutions too for group #3.

I hope to discuss those possible solutions and my entire analysis.

You argue like a lib.

Ah, it's to be name calling then? Alright, you argue like a whiny, multi-color-haired faggot. Purple and green really aren't your colors... Feel better now?

No, calling me a liar

I never called you a liar. You called yourself one. I went to some effort to indicate I wasn't calling you a liar.

Yes, and they can vote for Republicans since they are the most "pure" of the bunch of us.

I wouldn't call libertarian Republicanss more pure. That's your language, not mine. I would hope to call them allies though in voting out Obama and his congressional supporters in 2010 and 2012.

You talk about political allies? Reagan won 49 states--twice!

Remember the Reagan Democrats? Reagan embraced the big tent to get to that 49 state mark of success. That's a good model for 2010 and 2012 given, like in 1980, many Dems are disaffected with their own party.

condescending twit

Ah, more naming calling... How about this in response? "I bet your chili is bland and made in New York City!"

Are you calling me a liar?

Even if I thought you were a liar, what would the advantage be to calling you one?

Would calling you a liar make you more likely to accept potential allies? Would it make you less likely to alienate people who think mostly our way?

The 2010 and 2012 elections will be won on the margins. This means that we'll need every single vote.

So I don't particularly care what you think of libertarians as long as you avoid alienating them. Given Obama and his Chicago mafia are running the show, it's well past time to hold our noses and accept almost anybody as a political ally.

Demanding ideological purity before accepting potential allies is a recipe for disaster. Within the Republican party, it's completely reasonable to aid those candidates who more closely match our own ideologies.

But at the end of the day, we all know a Republican has to win. I worried becuase I see no sign that'll happen. The party is too fractured.

I genuinely wonder if we can pull it together in time.

I defend Ron Paul for a lot of reasons. For example, we all should support efforts to shrink the size of government and its control over our lives.

Second, it’s worth growing our allies are much as possible. The Dems will have a constant drumbeat of propaganda from now until November. They’ll have nearly limitless funding as well as groups like ACORN to help them. We should do nothing to discourage potential allies from voting our way.

Calling libertarians undeserved names doesn’t encourage them to vote our way. So cut it out, can’t ya?

Yet more Ron Paul bashing on FR. What a shock! (not)

I know of not a single libertarian who fails to praise Ronald Reagan. At worst what they add is that they wish there’d been a Congress that would have helped Reagan cut back government spending and government’s intrusions into our lives.

And here are the disclaimers to keep the anti-Paulbots from going off the deep end. I do not, and have not ever supported the Libertarian Party. I am a life-long Republican voter.

And like my tagline says, I support Palin in 2012.

If you’re as pro-life as you claim to be, you’d invest more time trying to change your own party’s positions on life issues, and less time trying to make a different party more like your broken one.

Which party is that? I do not, and have not ever supported the Libertarian Party. I am a life-long Republican voter.

And if our party is broken, people like you are to blame. Your kind of Obama-esque thuggery and bravado prevented a self-examination of our party in time to prevent the debacle in 2008.

You have repeatedly defamed me and others on FR. You've demonstrated both lack of knowledge and unwillingness to do even the basic research necessary to defend your outlandish claims. Perhaps you'd consider putting in a resume to become a Presidential Spokesman? You certainly demonstrate the appropriate skills set.

Not only are you now questioning my commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, but you're implying I'm a truther as well. You have no factual basis for making either of these charges.

But based on your repeated behavior, I question your commitment to something as basic as the Ninth Commandment. You've shown me ample and repeated evidence of the contempt and disregard you have for the truth. Why are you so willing to bear false witness to try to win a slapfight on FR?

I expect some basic things from other human beings. One of those expectations is that they have at least minimal standards regarding truth so they can avoid bearing false witness against others. Clearly you've not met that minimum standard.

And, BTW, most libertarians believe in a woman's so-called "right" to choose. There is no more narrow-minded political position in the history of the human race. Including slavery and the "Final Solution."

Most libertarians? Really? Have you polled them?

Had you read my earlier posts, you'd see clearly that I'm Pro-Life.

Further, even Ron Paul, who you attack without doing even basic research, is Pro-Life as well.

It occurs to me that as much fun as slapfighting in Free Republic is, it’s not accomplishing much,

Ask yourself this simple question: Which of us is more able to speak to undecided and independent voters to get them to vote our way? After all, you’ve made it clear you apply an remarkably narrow ideological purity test before accepting like-minded people as your allies.

And as much fun as you’re having preaching to the choir, your debate style will never convince undecided and independent voters.

That’s fine if all *you* want to accomplish is to preach to the choir. But *I* aspire to rather more.

You’re wrong about libertarian Republicans. You’re also confusing libertarians in the Republican party with the Libertarian Party. They are two separate groups of people.

I don’t support the Libertarian Party either.

A useful discussion would be to gauge your willingness to support libertarian Republicans. If you’re not willing to accept them as allies, then you’d appear to prefer Democrats to win in 2010.

For me, it’s easy and natural to accept support from other Republicans even if I disagree with them on some issues.

Hopefully enough other Republicans will feel the same way so we can clean up the mess in Washington this year in early November.

Libertarians hate Republicans more than they do Democrats.

On the contrary, I've voted for Republicans since I was old enough to vote.

But I want to elect people who will genuinely shrink the size and scope of government in our lives. The crop of Republicans we had in office from 2000 to 2008 gave that nothing but lip service.

Then they booted Ron Paul and others from the debates to keep us from seeing real alternatives. Ron Paul's approach to foreign policy is dead wrong, but his approach to shrinking government is both unwavering and on target. That's why the media call him, "Dr. No"

I see a parallel here with Republican inaction on abortion. Elected Republicans have promised action for decades, but done little to protect Life.

McCain was our candidate last time not only because the media wanted it, but because Republican leadership thought they had to be "more moderate" to win. In actuality, they compounded their electoral losses by disgusting the base with a RINO candidate for President.

The Republican leadership's disconnect, as well as President Obama's corruption and arrogance, gave rise to the Tea Party protests.

I prefer to vote for those who will do what they say. I prefer a genuinely smaller government. Hopefully you do too.

I’m not remotely suggesting anyone vote for the Libertarian party. That’s a non-starter. I’m suggesting that others not dismiss libertarian-leaning Republicans.

As a shorthand, capital-L “Libertarian” normally means the Libertarian party. Whereas libertarian refers more broadly to all those who want who to reduce governments’ control of our lives.

I don’t care if you hate libertarians. I don’t care if you ignore all evidence, no matter how well sourced, you’re wrong about libertarian Republicans.

But as long as you remain unwilling to commit to vote party unity, you’ll be just as guilty as those Republicans who allowed Obama to become president in the first place.

In some ways, what you’re doing is even worse. You should know at this point what an awful President Obama is.

And you should know that our only chance to defeat him and his agenda is to end the factionalism in the Republican party.

But instead of helping rebuild, you’re spending your time smearing libertarian Republicans as truthers. Okay. You win this argument. Congratulations.

Now can we rebuild the Republican party in time for 2010?

Slapfights on FR will not end the Democrat majority in Congress. Only winning elections will do that.

To win elections, we need to mend the fractures in the Republican party.

So far, you’re not helping do that.

I neither get drunk, nor use illegal drugs. Nor do I associate with people who do.

The Left regularly attacks the messenger instead of the message. I expect, and often get, better from libertarians and conservatives.

RINOs and liberals often can’t go more than about five sentences without making a personal attack.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2457178/posts?page=223#223

“Are you sure that your agenda on FR is not to keep posting messages to defend the RINOs?”

Well said.

Are you perhaps....projecting?

Umm ... no. I didn't find your claim credible. To use an analogy, if you said you had a friend who could prove the Earth was flat, I'd have a hard time believing you too.

Do you want to make a specific accusation against George W. Bush

When it came to a fundamental conservative principle like fiscal discipline. George W. Bush was neither a conservative, nor a libertarian. As a Texan, I knew this to be the case long before Bush ran for the Presidency.

Nonetheless, I held my nose and voted for him in the name of party unity.

I have no confidence that if the roles were reversed, you'd vote for a libertarian-leaning Republican.

That disconnect is why our party is as fractured as it is. And it's why Obama, as arrogant, out-of-touch, and inexperienced as he is, may end up being a two-term president.

I don't care if you hate libertarians. I don't care if you ignore all evidence, no matter how well sourced, you're wrong about libertarian Republicans.

But I do care if you and those like you keep the party fractured so Obama gets a second term.

Remember, I'll vote for folks like you for the chance to send Obama home from DC. But I don't see you voting for libertarian Republicans.

So, currently, you're the problem. Decide who you hate more, and move in a straight line based on that decision.