I have always touted myself as being a Conservative first and a Republican second. Generally, the two coincide enough for me to call myself a Republican, but every once in a while the GOP strays too far from the path for my liking.
I like Fred. I have since the beginning. I have been part of the Fred crowd since the movement was known as “Draft Fred Thompson.” Why? Because he is the best candidate under the “R” banner for us Conservative first people. I am not the type of person to step into the political arena lightly. I do my homework before I make an endorsement, and after scrutinizing the array of GOP candidates quite throughly, I found Fred Thompson to be the best choice by a long shot. This is not only due to his solid conservative and federalist ideals, but also because he has consistently come out head and shoulders above every single other candidate when it comes to actual (and reasonable) policy proposals and stances. This is why he sweeps every debate and absolutely crushes his opponents.
Yet, he continues to trail. How can this be?
It’s simple. The GOP has failed Fred Thompson. The GOP is not the limited government conservative party it used to be (and should be). The GOP has turned to the ideals of “compassionate conservatism” and big government. In no way does this mesh with conservatism, and in no way does this mesh with Fred Thompson.
The GOP has turned into a club that is more interested in victory than staying true to conservative ideals. They have set their sights on winning elections and are adjusting the party platform to meet that goal. While winning is certainly important and should certailny be a priority, at no time should that priority trump your ideals. The GOP has become the party of chameleons. They change their skin every time they think that it will net them an advantage. As much as I loathe the Democrats, at least they are intellectually honest enough to stick to their liberal-socialist ideals.
The average Republican voter follows the trends set by the GOP. They are constantly inundated with the idea that voting for anybody with an “R” next to their name is infinitely better than voting Democrat. But is that true? When the GOP endorses the wrong people, should the voting body go along with it because it’s better than the alternative?
Minnesota has recently painted a perfect example of this. The MN GOP has endorsed Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee! But don’t forget, these are also the same people that not only brought Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, but also defend him to no end because he is [supposedly] a Republican. Pay no mind that he is continually trying to out-liberal the extreme-left nutball, Governor Jim Doyle of Wisconsin. Since he’s got that “R” behind his name, he is to be supported by the GOP.
If simply being a pro-life liberal is all it takes to run – and win – under the Republican flag, is it worth it?
Fred has shunned this new and corrupt Republican mold. He has refused to play their games. He holds fast to conservatism over this new party platform – and in turn he is being severely punished by the GOP. After all, if the GOP gave a damn about limited government conservative ideals, Fred Thompson would be leading by leaps and bounds with Ron Paul coming in second. Instead, these two are trailing behind the the “new Republicans” who have about as much in common with the ideals of the Founding Fathers as Ted Kennedy.
If Thompson doesn’t win the Republican nomination, I will be pointing my finger squarely at the GOP. People have been making all sorts of excuses for Fred’s position – claiming everything from a lack of motivation to the “wrong” personality to claiming he doesn’t really want to be president… But in the end, they’re all just hollow excuses to cover for the fact that Fred’s lack of superficial popularity is due to the fact that he has sharply broken from the GOP’s party platform.
I don’t mean to insult the GOP too much here, but look at Fred and Ron Paul. Fred broke, Paul broke even further – but they didn’t break for the worst. They strayed from the Republican path and tried to come in line with the Conservative path – and both have been punished severely despite the fact that both have ferocious support from the Conservative base. Look at the blogs. Right-wing bloggers tend to be ferocious conservatives, and Fred seems to have more support from the Conservative blogosphere than any other candidate. Ron Paul has enjoyed similar success with drawing out the libertarian conservative grass roots base. The support is there for these candidates, but it’s not coming from the GOP.
How sad is that?
Depending on the outcome of this nomination cycle, it may be time to reevaluate the GOP. But who knows? Maybe the tides will change and prove me wrong. Maybe.
Great post. I’ll add a few thoughts.
First, I’m not sure where the media fits into this, and I know that people have opined that Fred isn’t exactly a media darling (which is kinda strange, given his connections to Hollywood and such). Even the talking heads on Fox haven’t been overly friendly to him. I’d like to think that the media doesn’t influence who is popular, but I’m not sure how it’s possible. The debate should be to what extent.
Second (an unfortunately), I think there is something superficial going on. Fred’s appearance, along with his demeanor and lack of charisma (if that’s the way you describe it) aren’t in his favor. He might have the best ideas, but those kinds of things definitely factor into a candidate’s electability. The superficiality goes for both sides of the aisle I think, as we saw the power of tears this week. The American electorate is a strange animal indeed.
OTOH, Maybe there’s something to be said about a distinction between being a great president (having the answers) and being a great leader (ability to motivate people to act on them). Maybe their both equally important, and Fred is just weak in the latter.
Fred is the only candidate I’ve given money to. I supported him from the draft Fred movement to the I’m with Fred entrance into the race. That being said, the GOP is not failing Fred. Fred failed to inspire the GOP. If being 100% conservative on all issues is all it takes to become president then anyone from the National Review or the Weekly Standard could get the nomination.
The presidency is about so much more. It’s about leadership. It’s about inspiration. It’s about perspiration. Fred showed us what we expected from him for the first time in last nights debate. He finally showed some of those characteristics. But can we trust it. We he wake tomorrow with the same fire in his belly? He’s been in the race since September and this was the first glimpse of his passion.
Fred lost my support. I did not fail him. I think many in the GOP feel the same way.
On another note, I do commend you for saying something refreshingly positive about Ron Paul. For all is quirkiness and questionable past support of very non-libertarian views, his point-of-view ought not be so easily dismissed. While not well expressed, his economic reasoning is pretty good. The Austrian theory of the business cycle is sound. The Austrian theory of money is right on. Understanding monetary theory may be the most important issue in the coming century. The notion that government has reached beyond its constitutional authorization is unquestionable. So I commend your honest analysis. I am sure others will be less kind.
Finally, what I just said may then cause you to question what I am about to say. I now support Mike Huckabee. Not because I failed to examine his record or haven’t read the scathing attacks he has received from the pundits, but because he supports the Fair Tax, because he is offering bold ideas, because he has pledge to not raise taxes, because he doesn’t support government mandating healthcare (Romney), because his economic populism is not about more government but about untaxing production (a truely conservative ideal), and so much more.
Fred is fortunate. He has virtually no record to point to or run from. He has ideas and we take them at face value. Others in the establishment refuse to attack Romney for his record. He apparently can flip-flop with ease an nobody questions his conservative credentials. Let’s not forget that Reagan presided over the largest tax increase in the history of the state of california and that he increased spending there 120%. But he believed in federalism, like Huck does.
My point is this. Huckabee demonstrates that he has the fire to be President. He has pledged to cut taxes, lower spending, and eliminate an entire federal agency (IRS). He has a very tough immigration plan, advocates an unbreachable military, and a fierce defense of Israel. He is unquestionably a leader of the christian right. This is what he is saying. If you call him a liberal, you are calling him a liar. That he is paying lip service to these issues. I just don’t believe it.
Good post. I understand what you are saying about the GOP. Somehow they have turned into a big government fiscally irresponsible party. They need to get back to their roots. To be honest with you, for some reason I never gave Fred a close look. Perhaps I fell victim to the lack of motivation theory behind Fred. While I didn’t watch the debate last night (the first one I missed, I needed to take a debate off!) I heard many of Fred’s sound clips today and he sounded great! If only America had heard him sound like this before perhaps he would be polling better.
Excellent post. The GOP is failing Fred Thompson because it is failing its base. The base is what has kept America strong for over 200 years because it understands the intention of our Founding Fathers. Even as the world becomes smaller, the freedom of the individual is the strength of our country. It is what draws others to our ideal. It is an ideal not only worth the effort of explaining to the world, but of fighting for in the face of opposing ideologies.
Connie, you said it… The GOP is falling apart because it moving to the left to fill the void that the Dems are leaving as they move closer to socialism. if there is a void to fill, let the moderates or independents fill it. The fact of the matter is that people on the center line are mushy. They are lacking in strength because to be honest, you need strength to take a stand on one side or another.
As I said, I loathe the dems, but at least they have the integrity to stand to the left – the deep left – of the center line.
The GOP has always been a symbol of strength and integrity. I hate to invoke Regan’s name, but look at the strength and integrity that he showed the world. That’s why his “peace through superior power” ideology worked. He never had to go to war because people knew he was capable of not only going to war, but winning that war, so there was never a need to “test the waters” so to speak.
Where is that party now? They are straying to the left and becoming weak and compassionate. They are bowing to the global warming scam. They are trying to micromanage and manipulate the economy… They are doing all the things that Conservatives stand against. And then they jump on the bandwagons of the pro-life liberals like Huckabee and McCain… It makes me sick.
I could swear to God there was request to vote for you here just a minute ago.
might be the wrong thread. Anyway, now you’re only one vote away from the front page
heh, sorry Micky, don’t worry, you’re not going crazy. I felt guilty about putting it up there and took it down.
Everyone is out to get me, wheres my meds ?
Guilty ? How the fuck are we supposed to know if you dont tell us ?
Dude, you gotta get your shit out there, its great.
Be shamelees man , get busy !
Thompson needs to articulate some difference from the other main candidates, much as Huckabee has done (by branding the Bush White House as arrogant etc. And we all know how Ron Paul has staked out his own path)
I’ll be honest, I can’t name one issue on which Thompson differs from the others (and don’t say ‘Federalism’ because they all profess to believe in that).
I’m a Democrat who used to be a Republican.
If you’d like my take about the GOP’s problems, read on:
You say:
“I don’t mean to insult the GOP too much here, but look at Fred and Ron Paul. Fred broke, Paul broke even further – but they didn’t break for the worst. They strayed from the Republican path and tried to come in line with the Conservative path – and both have been punished severely despite the fact that both have ferocious support from the Conservative base.”
The problem with you lumping Fred thompson in with Ron Paul as the ones with “ferocious support from the Conservative base is this:
Fred Thompson looked over at Ron Paul and literally laughed in his face.
If Fred’s going to do that, you are being dishonest to lump them together, instead of comparing them. If you really want to compare their support, Fred Thompson has no support from anyone, compared to Ron Paul.
~Fred bragged about raising $200,000 in one day. Ron Paul raised more than any candidate in either Party last quarter, and he raised over a million dollars in one day.
~Ron Paul bragged about having more donations from the military than any other candidate and not one candidate has challenged him.
~Charlie Gibson questioned every candidate about a flip-flop. Charlie didn’t have a single flip-flop to bring up for ron Paul.
~On the day that GWB announced arm sales to the Saudis, only Ron Paul was questioning why we are arming Arab countries AND the Israelis. Why ARE we?
~Only Ron Paul was willing to reflect on GWB winning in 2000 by ridiculing Democrats for nation-building, while Fred Thompson is a Bush Republican.
~And Fred is not a Reagan Republican, as he did not support Reagan in 1976 or in 1980. He hopped on the bandwagon afterwards.
~Only Ron Paul recognizes that the war in Iraq is breaking our fiscal back and our military’s back.
~Ron Paul has been pro-life ALWAYS; Fred after he saw a sonogram of his 4-yr-old.
You spent most of your time advocating for Fred, not Ron Paul.
There is no way I will vote for any Republican, until Bush Republicans are humiliated. But if someone MADE me vote for a Republican, the only one that I would even consider is Ron Paul.
You’ve spelled out the problems with the GOP, not me. I’m only telling you that Fred Thompson is part of the problem, not the solution. He’s been a part of the DC crowd since the 1970’s.
My point is, those of us who DON’T laugh at Ron Paul (like Fred did) KNOW that Fred Thompson is NOT the “true conservative” in the race.
Ron Paul is the TRUE conservative in the race, but the GOP has shown us for the last seven years that, given the opportunity, they are longer conservative about anything.
Thus, another Thumpin’ in 2008.
My advice to the GOP:
Stop laughing in Ron Paul’s face and start listening.
arclightzero Said:
“void that the Dems are leaving as they move closer to socialism”
Did you over-abbreviate and mean the Dems are moving the country closer to socialism? Or do you have an argument that the D’s domestic policy “platform” is closer to socialism now than in the past? I see no evidence for the latter, and the language sounds like an ad hominum attack on the D’s rather than an explication of political difference.
From my view, the problem with the R’s is what it has been since Nixon (at least) – it can’t figure out how to be a party of conservatrive economic principle without also operationally becoming the party of financial privilege – and financial privilege has no political principles: it cares only about narrow corporatist economic policies – and about winning. As campaign donations this cycle demonstrate, they will also buy futures in the D’s any time it looks like the R’s will lose.
One fundamental challenge to libertarian principles (and many other principles as well) is how to prevent economic power from becoming the dominant source of political power. And neither the libertarians nor the traditional conservatives have it figured out – and as a result pretend the problem isn’t there, and keep looking for other explanations for why things are the way they are.
Jan said:
“There is no way I will vote for any Republican, until Bush Republicans are humiliated.”
BDS is BDS no matter which side of the aisle it emanates from. It is a juvenile and irrational temper tantrum. You don’t solve problems by throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Paulites have fallen for the anti-America propaganda that leftists worked so hard to build. It was their long-term strategy to create the illusion of global American hatred so they could convince us we needed saving from ourselves and that they would be the ones to do it. Even Huckabee has fallen for it – or is disingenuously using it to garnish votes.
Great post. THere is something I have not seen asked/answered about Governor Huckabee. I am an evangelical Southern Baptist. As I read scripture, you don’t become a “former” Pastor. You are called to the ministry, you don’t decide to “try it out”. In the same way you don’t become “un-ordained”. Is there something in the Governor’s past…a liberal stance that broke him from the denomiation, or a personal matter, or whatever…which called him to abandon his call to the ministry. He may say this is none of our business, but for someone who wears his faith on his sleeve and evokes scripture when he needs to, it may be helpful for all of us to know what led him to drop his church and get into politics. He is busy touting his credentials. Perhaps he should tell us more of his background.
If the rest of your views are as accurate as your belief that the Minnesota Republican Party endorsed Mr. Huckabee for president, you are sorry sack of … The new chairman of the Minnesota party, out of the blue, made a personal endorsement, not a party endorsement, of Mr. Huckabee. It carries no clout whatsoever, and was rapidly forgotten by virtually everyone in the state.
I’m a socially liberal type who is in favor of small government, federalism, less “entitlements”, and lower taxes. But I’m also in favor of keeping America safe with a strong, non-isolationist military strategy, and can’t accept the Ron Paul line that says essentially that Islamism is “all about us”.
So, my best candidate, at least philosophically, is Fred.
But I have to admit that politics is as much about leadership and management skill as it is about a good philosophy. Here, unfortunately, Fred has been wanting. And the excuse that the Party is to blame doesn’t fly; major political parties are multi-constituency electoral machines. Every politician knows this. Major political parties have no more connection to “standalone” political philosophies than corporations have to their “mission statements”; to the extent that there’s an overarching philosophy in political parties, it’s the least common denominator across their various constituencies and interest groups.
If there’s a Fred constituency and coalition in the GOP – and I think there is – he has to find it, organize it, and lead it, and make his stamp on the current leadership of the GOP.
“The GOP has turned into a club that is more interested in victory than staying true to conservative ideals.”
That is the whole problem with the Republican party written in one sentence. Excellent!
On January 12, 2008 at 1:31 pm Connie Said:
–> “BDS is BDS no matter which side of the aisle it emanates from. [...]You don’t solve problems by throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”
+++ Bush is the bathwater; our Constitution is the baby.
Believe me, BDS is about saving the beautiful baby from the deadly bathwater. Ask Ron Paul.
Sometimes I think RP is the only Republican who has actually read the Constitution. Does “Provide for the common defense” equal “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” as far as you are concerned, Connie?
–> “Paulites have fallen for the anti-America propaganda that leftists worked so hard to build.”
–> “Even Huckabee has fallen for it – or is disingenuously using it to garnish votes.”
+++ Connie, don’t you find it even the least bit interesting that Paulites are generating the most money for their candidate, and Huckabee-ites have given their candidate a historic leap to the front of the GOP pack?
Again, are you telling me that about 30-40% of the GOP is completely wrong?
Because that’s about the percentage that is solidly supporting Paul + Huckabee, and they are not going away.
For those of you who keep repeating the talking points for Fred, here’s my advise:
Fred Thompson needs to stop laughing, because no one but his supporters (maybe 10% of the GOP?) is taking him seriously.
You are quite correct in your analysis, which explains why voters in this country are so disenchanted with BOTH political parties. Neither party represents average Americans anymore. Either we have to bring the GOP back (Fred is trying to do this), or create a third party. The time may be ripe for such an endeavor. I can tell you this: any party that would reject Fred Thompson does not deserve my support, and will not get it in the future. I am sure that I am not alone.
I have met Fred Thompson and I think he is a great person. But Fred has only himself to blame. Huckabee offered to debate Fred on the issues and CNN promised to air the debate. Fred refused even after her was given the option to pick the topic, time, and place. How sad that someone of Fred’s stature would choose taking “pot shots” at Huckabee over a debating the great issues of out time.
The only question you have to ask about Fred is…Name one piece of legislation he generated…He was asleep in congress too…
hiya ..thanks for visitin my site again!..as for this..I didnt even know conservative ideals existed any longer..so many have simply sold out!..great work Arc!
Good greif, we’ve just started, and Fred is a long time from being out of the race. He should stay in until the convention is over, and by then he will have won the hearts and minds of the true conservatives. He’ got my vote.
I would agree with everything you have to say about Fred Thompson, but how did Ron Paul get into the equation? Just the recent blog fiasco indicates that Paul is hopelessly disorganized at best, or a fool and charlatan at worst.
Thompson is my choice for Conservative values, Guiliani is my choice for accomplishments and impact. After them, I have no choices and will sit this one out.
I’m for Fred. I’ve read all his position papers and believe he has the best points on prevailing issues. He also has the best understanding of fundamental conservative principles.
Fred got in late. He made some early mistakes, had to reorganize his campaign management and raise money to get started. Before he formally entered to race, all the pundits were impatient with him to get in.
When he finally hit the ground the punditry acted so appalled that his campaign was not perfect and dissed him for Huck’s empty yet entertaining rhetoric.
And so-called conservatives were so concerned about finding “the one” to beat Hillary they may have almost wrecked, in their impatient zeal, the conservative fusion of social, fiscal and defense conservatives needed to beat the liberals.
At first Rudy was all the rage. But Rudy is a liberal republican with little depth beyond NYC and 911. He’s fading.
Huck is a shallow, religious populist who hurt Mitt because of his church affilliation (”don’t they believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?”). Disgusting and classless.
McCain, a gift to our nation, has a liberal “X” factor and a poor history on taxes and immigration. He deserves credit for his criticism of Iraq and for promoting The Surge but his ego driven obstenance has left conservatives frustrated time and again.
Mitt may have flip-flopped on social issues but at least he’s flopped on the right side of things.
I hope folks in MI vote for Mitt on Tuesday. And McCain needs to beat Huck.
Then they can come down to SC and get whipped by Fred. That will be something the pundits can’t ignore.
How about a Fred/Mitt ticket in November?
gregdn Said:
Fred has stood out from the crowd on almost every issue… If not by what he says, than by what he has done. The other candidates are a bunch of talking heads that are willing to say whatever it takes to gain voter support. But people can say whatever they want, but what good are words? Look at Bush. He said a whole lot of things, but turned around and did a whole lot of other things. If you want to try to anticipate what somebody will do in the future, the best thing you can do is look at their past.
Of all the candidates in the field right now Fred’s past actions most accurately reflect his words today. Of anybody, I would trust Fred to keep his word and run this country as he is telling us he would. His powerful conservative ideals stand out as more than just talking points.
Jan Said:
Ron Paul has done some things that warrant being laughed at. I don’t mean to traumatize too many Ron Paul supporters out there, but Paul’s strong and convicted ideals are often times drowned out by some of his completely over-the-top policy ideas. You have to admire the man for being convicted, but you can’t help but to chuckle sometimes.
No, I’m not. I lump them together because they both broke from the new GOP standard. That doesn’t mean that they have to be buddies and work together. While their platforms are the most similar, they definitely break on some very important points. However, they are both dedicated to their principles, and as such I wouldn’t expect them to work together.
Of course! I am stumping for Fred here, not Ron Paul. I only even brought him up because I respect the fact that he broke from the traditional party rhetoric. Other than that, I vehemently disagree with him on some key points.
What is that supposed to mean? First off, the whole point of this post was to basically disagree with the GOP standard (or the “Bush Republicans” as you call them) and praise those who are willing to stick to conservative ideals instead of clinging to the party line. If you hate Bush, that’s fine, but there is no place for that in this post as I (we) stand firmly against the standard party rhetoric these days.
Don’t take this the wrong way, but I think you’re being a bit delusional here. How is Fred part of the problem? He strays from the standard party line on nearly every issue. Is it that he isn’t straying far enough like Ron Paul? I hate to tell you, but Paul is off the deep end. If Fred went that far, I wouldn’t support him. There is an acceptable medium to the problem, and that is where Fred is. He’s far enough from the new GOP to make changes for the better but not so far as Paul that he stands to really disrupt things.
Sorry, Ron Paul is more apt to be called a Libertarian than a Conservative. Is that a bad thing? No, I just consider many Libertarian ideals to be too radical. I was a libertarian in my younger days (hey, some kids go liberal, I went the other way) but as a grew up and grew wiser I found that the radical aspects of it were too unrealistic so I moved to a hard conservative stance with some libertarian leanings.
Ditto on this article. I am frustrated at the National and the local GOP parties. Even in my state I’m seeing more and more of this. If Fred loses then I will start looking somewhere else. I will not give up my core values for any particular party..never. Trust me..there will be a polictical group that will fill the gap that the GOP has left. GOP will be left high and dry.
slowthought Said:
I absolutely believe that the democratic platform is edging further to the left and hence closer to socialism. The democrat policy of pushing for a society that is dependent on government in one way or another is frighteningly close to socialism – especially when that dependency is funded by punishing the top income brackets and businesses.
I guess if you’re feeling overly sensitive about it. Otherwise, the whole point was simply to point out that the democratic party has been moving to the left of where it once was which is leaving a vacuum that unfortunately the GOP feels the necessity to fill.
isn’t that what I have been saying? I guess we’re in agreeance on the fact that the current incarnation of the GOP has some serious problems and has strayed from conservatism. I’m just not sure why you’re taking an angry rhetoric with me if we see eye-to-eye on this.
The best way to accomplish this is by truly allowing for free market rule with a limited government that adheres to the principles of existing to protect freedom, not rule the population.
Eberta Said:
Huckabee’s problem is that he is using his faith as a talking point to try to lure the religious vote – which is why he wears his past on his sleeve. He is playing a game. He knows that he cannot tie religion too close to politics, but he wants to keep it close enough to appear to be a man of god to the religious voters.
Minnesota Republican Said:
Of what? Let me fill you in: As the party head, he should be doing what he can to not only foster and encourage Conservative values, but he should be punishing those who don’t. Many of the elected Republicans in Minnesota would be more at home with a “D” next to their name (your Governor included), and as such Ron Carey should be reprimanding these people, and punishing them if they don’t come around. Let them run as independents if they won’t run as Conservatives. By Carey endorsing Huckabee, he is keeping in line with the current Minnesota Republican environment.
Does this mean that the whole party is wayward? No, but the people who should be guiding you folks is going stray and you can’t tell me that he isn’t taking people with him. If you’re going to call me names over this, then you’re obviously pissed off about it. Then do something! Minnesota Republicans are driving your party into the ground. Don’t stand for it!
Foobarista Said:
This is true, but you’re overlooking something important. you shouldn’t have to be suffering from Type-A personality disorder to make a successful run for office. I think that Fred’s leadership style is just what this country needs, but in order to attract the attention of the media and the sheep who are all plopped in front of the tube, you need that in-your-face type-a personality. Personally, I think that is a wrong trait to have in a leader. People need to understand that a great leader doesn’t need to be somebody who is in your face or making a spectacle of themselves.
Jan said:
Unfortunately, this is something that can be all-too loosely interpreted. After all, what is the common defense? Is ensuring our nation is protected from outside forces simply mean repelling invasion, or does it mean being proactive in addressing global issues before they get out of hand?
Ron Paul has unfortunately interpreted things to mean that we should only have a national defense that is within our own borders. This may sound like a good idea, but it is terribly unrealistic.
Yes. There is a great deal of trouble within the GOP, and the surge of both Huckabee and McCain is evidence of that. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is enjoying the support of the people who buy into the “blame America” crowd who believes our problems stem from the fact that we are not isolationists.
I’m not sure if that is necessarily true. The problem is that Fred is not being thrust upon people, and the average “sheep” voters are not out there looking for ideals – they are out there doing what they are told.
larry bailey said:
Very true. I don’t know very many (if any) people who can claim that they feel that they are represented in politics at all. Both parties are so over-the-top agenda driven that people are left feeling alienated. Politicians need to remember that they are working for the people, not ruling the people. That is why the Conservative ideal of limited government is so important, and why the GOP needs to get back to it if they hope to ever woo the masses again.
Ken Said:
If your only basis for judging somebody’s congressional career is if they generated legislation, you need to have your head examined. Most legislation that is generated is just fluff designed to try to show off somebody’s ability to make a statement or pander to a special interest. There are many ways to stand out in Congress, and running around creating pointless pieces of legislation is not one of them.
Frank Arden Said:
Isn’t it interesting how the pundits try to direct the game? They punished Fred for not playing by their rules, even though I think (as do many people) that’s Fred showed an uncommon strength by not letting the Pundits rule his campaign.
I think that would be an ideal combination. A solid conservative and a solid businessman… I think they could really work together to steer this nation down the right path and get things back on track.
Fred should be our next president, thats all I have to say. Goto fred08.com and help this man out.
On January 13, 2008 at 6:33 pm arclightzero Said:
…
“I absolutely believe that the democratic platform is edging further to the left and hence closer to socialism.”
I don’t see it – for instance, the D’s made attempts at universal health care before, it isn’t new. I’m curious what evidence suggests to you that the D’s have moved closer to socialism than their historic positions.
“I’m just not sure why you’re taking an angry rhetoric with me …”
I can’t find anything that sounds angry (at you) in my comments, unless it is the suggestion that an evidence-free assertion that the D’s are shifting toward socialism is an ad hominum attack. And if that sounds angry to you, perhaps it is you who are over-sensitive. But I really don’t want to divert into literary criticism.
”
“how to prevent economic power from becoming the dominant source of political power”
The best way to accomplish this is by truly allowing for free market rule with a limited government that adheres to the principles of existing to protect freedom, not rule the population.”
Her is the crux of the problem – “free market rule” alone will not, ever prevent economic power from becoming the dominant source of political power. It is only through a structuring that allows other forms of power, like democracy, to balance economic power that a political process escapes financial domination. Mere formal structures of democracy won’t get you there, you have to explicitly counter-balance economic power. Even in societies that are more homogenous and less competitive, part of that balancing role is carried ot by government.
Perhaps I short-change libertarians and conservatives, but I can’t find that they regularly recognize this problem, nor that solving it logically comes prior to unleashing the free market.
Lastly, reliance on the “rule of the free market” leaevs unresolved the very real economics of externalities and public goods. If the carbon dioxide-global warming causation turns out to be true – or take the ozone hole problem which apparently was real- the rule of the free market has only the terribly inefficient ways of dealing with these problems.
So my critique remains that neither libertarians nor traditional conservatives appear to have a workable answer to the problem of preventing economic domination of the political process – and libertarians (more arguably conservatives also) appear to have no answer for problems of externalities and public goods.
These socialist tendencies may not be new, but they are certainly becoming much more mainstream than they have been in the past. Every time we turn around, we’re being inundated with new entitlement or welfare programs. People are losing their ability to function without a government handout. Look at any of the recent disaster events. The first thing people do is stick out their hand, and when they don’t get what they are expecting, they complain that the government isn’t giving them enough. All you have to do is go through a larger city area to see the welfare queens and kings, living off the government dole while also collecting charity. And yet, the constant rhetoric from the left is “we need to tax everybody who can afford to be taxed and redistribute that money down to everybody else.” Look at SCHIP (one of my personal favorite chunks of legislative lunacy). It’s nothing more than a de facto attempt to open up more people to government entitlements and breeds a whole new generation of people who will be dependent on government handouts.
And should we get into global warming? It would seem that every so-called “solution” to global warming is right out of the socialist playbook… And the Dems are gleefully jumping on board. Again, maybe not new ideas, but definitely going much more mainstream and accepted as standard Democrat ideals. And yes, you can argue that Republicans are jumping on the bandwagon as well, which is part of my overall complaint. The GOP is straying to the left as the Dems are shifting further to the left.
Perhaps “angry” was the wrong choice of words. I just found it curious as to why it is that you would home right in on something that you would consider an “ad hominum” attack on Dems when all I was doing was stating that there was a vacuum to be filled and pointing out where it was. But I guess that is neither here nor there.
I’m not sure that I can put my finger on what you’re advocating for here. Further government control of the market? If that is what you’re saying, I would strongly disagree with you there because the government cannot objectively control a market. Inevitably, they turn to market manipulation which is the wrong way to do things and actually breeds more corruption in government. For example, look at the ethanol debacle. The government is trying to force things that the market doesn’t want. If the market wanted it, they would go that route. Instead, the government is disrupting a number of elements within the market as they try to manipulate things to their own benefit. If allowed to work, the free market will work and will do so without killing us all. There is no need to babysit.
I guess where we differ is that you believe that an economy, left unchecked, will run us all into the ground while I feel that government rule over an economy will drive us into the ground. Is there a happy medium? Perhaps, but where is that? You make the mistake of citing the ozone “crisis” which was much less of a crisis than it was DOW chemical lobbying to replace R12 with the much more expensive R134 (which also happened to be manufactured by DOW). Ethanol is the same thing. If ethanol could stand on its own, it might succeed, however it is not something that is really feasible which is why the government has gotten involved and has not only propped them up, but is now trying to force mandates to boost sales. But why? Examine the money trails. The legislation is steeped much deeper in money (and power) than environmentalism. If allowed to function, the free market would not touch ethanol with a 10 foot pole until it was adequate to the market’s needs.
I firmly believe that the government should exist simply to protect our freedoms and to gently guide things if things get too horribly off track. What we have no is absurd because we have people who are no more “experts” on topics than you or I, yet they are trying to control and manipulate things as if there are no repercussions to their actions. I just don’t rightly see how anybody could believe that “government knows best.”
Congrats arclight on creating a topic w/ so much buzz.
Here are my two cents to boil down the age old debate of more vs. less government.
When the free market is forced to decide things many ideas are proposed and the ones that work are adopted. Errors will be made but corrected relatively quickly as the monetary bottom line will be exposed quickly.
So errors in the free market will impact a few for a short time.
When the government steps in and mandates anything, you now have a select few making decisions for the many. If the governmental decisions are in error, the compounding impact is much greater and harder to correct. Then they pass more laws to screw up what they already screwed up creating a train wreck.
Here is a project people can attempt on their choice topic. What government intervention has benefited the populace vs creating a bigger mess, more paperwork and greater expense? I would contend the list of beneficial is dwarfed by the screw ups. To back up a claim, neutral data would need to be cited.
Hi Gary, thanks for dropping by. Haven’t seen you for a while…
Anyway, you bring up a good point. The free market has ups and downs, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. This newfound fear of drops tends to egg on the government when it comes to exerting control.
Look at the current state of the economy. The Fed has been working so hard to artificially hold off any sort of recession that they are doing far more long-term damage than if they were to just allow the market to stabilize on its own. In the short-term, the results may not be the what people want to deal with, but it will be easier to recover from than the damage being done by the Fed.
Part of what has drawn me to the hardliner Conservative ideals is the fact that a true Conservative wouldn’t try to run the economy from the capital. There hasn’t been a President that understands this since Reagan.
Paul is a racist conspiratoralist, under no scenario would he be in 2nd place in GOP, ever. Once he got any traction he would be exposed and roundly booted from the party. instead he’s a sideshow freak that is allowed to stay.
You guys are dreaming. Ron Paul is the only conservative, BY FAR, in the race. Fred is part of the republican party that John McCain says is responsible for the greatest expansion of government since the New Society! Fred voted for every one of those bloated budget bills that drove our deficit to $9 trillion. Trying to pick a conservative out of the GOP leaders is a joke, they’re socialist in their actions, even if their words sometimes sound good.
Armageddon may be upon us…..Amber and I agree on something.
Arc…as always you have posted great comments and got everyone’s mental juices flowing. As I mentioned before, I have been leaning to Paul. I keep digging and so far, I just haven’t seen a down side to him. The biggest shortfall that keeps popping up is his elect ability, yet if everyone voted for him that liked him instead of jumping their vote to someone else who is really liberal at heart (insert rest of GOP here), he may stand a chance.
I do have two questions for you on his record though. You said “but Paul’s strong and convicted ideals are often times drowned out by some of his completely over-the-top policy ideas.” I guess I don’t see any over the top policy ideas, and was wondering what you thought they were. I assume you mean overseas actions, but you would have stated that if that was his only flaw.
I also hear people saying that they don’t like him because he is a racist and an anti-Semite. I have done some digging and haven’t found any evidence of this. That would definitely sway me against him if it were true, but so far I just don’t see it. If you know of any reputable information on this, please pass it on.
Thanks again
Amber, you’re going a bit over the top there. Ron Paul is more libertarian than conservative, which may sound like a good thing in theory, it’s not terribly practical in reality.
While I am not terribly thrilled by the GOP candidates as a whole – and yes, some of them have some serious liberal leanings – I would hardly consider any of them to be socialist.
And I just don’t see how Fred is one of “them” like you are saying.
Camel, I have to admit that there are many things I like about Ron Paul. As for the racist/anti-semetic thing, I think much of it is here say and rumors. The only thing I have heard for sure is that his old newsletters had some questionable content, but they were written by staff, not him. Does that mean he’s racist? Dunno.
As for the issues…
First off, he opposes the death penalty which I am a strong advocate for.
Second, the talk about reverting back to the gold standard – while an interesting idea – is not at all practical in this day and age.
Third, and most importantly:
This is not true. While we may have more than we need, having forward operating bases is important – not only for us but to our allies (i.e. NATO). There is a certain degree of security that comes from having forward deployed troops because it is a threat of force that comes from presence. Can we pull back some? Yes, but not all.
I don’t agree with his “blame America” attitude for 9/11. 9/11 didn’t happen because we have bases in Saudi Arabia. Radicals kill because they are radicals. Some kill because their lands are occupied, but thje whole point of radical extremism is that it is generally not provoked – or it is provked because your views and beliefs are different than theirs. Rememeber, radical Islam is in a war against the Western culture, not our bases in Saudi Arabia.
This is perhaps one of the most ignorant statements I have ever heard. Fundamentalist extremisim happens regardless of what we do.
I’m sorry, but we don’t have a de facto draft
Why? last time I checked, the FBI was a useful organization, and while the DHS may need some reforming I wouldn’t suggest eliminating it completely.
It’s not? Maybe it should be. Pre-emptive war could have saved many lives in the past had we not tried to uphold this non-interventionist philosophy. Look at WW2. Had we stepped in to help early on, things would have been much different.
I just don’t see it. I thought people were coming here because we have a good economy and opportunity???
No, we like to hear English in our own country and don’t like to feel like outsiders in our own towns.
Too extreme. While a great idea, it’s not feasible. Reform, trim, reduce. But you can’t simply wave your hand and make these things disappear.
Interesting points. I will have to take some time and mull them over. Thanks for the feedback.
Ryan,
Sorry it took so long to get back to you. My travel schedule has been a bitch lately.
Issues….I agree with you on the death penalty. His point may be correct that it has errors, but I feel it is a deterrent as long as it is carried out in less than 30 freakin years.
Gold Standard…RP doesn’t necessarily think that the gold standard is the way to go, but thinks we should have something resembling it. Our deficit spending is out of control. We are constantly robbing Peter to pay Paul (no pun intended) and it has gotten beyond scary. Something has to be done about it and soon.
As to the war and other international interventions. I have posted somewhere else here that he really is not an isolationist. He believes in vigorous trade and in relations with other Nations as long as there is something in it for us. That may sound cold, but I couldn’t agree with it more. He never said that we were to blame for terrorists attacking us, he said we exacerbated the situation with our foreign policies. If we pulled out of the world militarily (not economically…trade is good) and brought our troops home, what do we really care what the nut jobs do in the rest of the world? Again I am going to sound cold, but I think our joining WW2 was a colossal waste. Don’t take that as anti American or anti Military…it is anything but that. We need to take care of our own before we try to fix the worlds problems. Our military is the strongest in the world and would do a hell of a lot better job protecting us here than abroad. Not to mention, all of the money we are borrowing from countries that hate us is just putting us in their debt.
Immigration. I agree and disagree with RP on this one. I will have to find the actual quote from him, because that doesn’t sound like his usual logic. I personally think that if we got rid of stupid laws like the child labor laws the problem would be minimalized. I have a 16 year old that cant get a job in construction because it is against the law for him to use a power tool. The unions have jacked rates up so high that many companies will hire illegals to cut their bottom line. We start taking away these things and more Americans will be willing to work for the low wages and be able to get the jobs. Then, fewer people will come across the border because the jobs wont be here for them. (sorry, that was sort of a side rant…been a long week.)
IRS…That is something we can do away with. Its really not too extreme. The amount of waste and the reams of red tape are a huge drain on our Country. If we stop giving to the UN, stop supporting other countries monetarily, pull our military back home to protect us here, cut government handouts, either cut or reduce our intelligence agencies, and basically get the government out of our pocket books there would no longer be a need for the IRS.
To be fair, here is my one major concern with the whole thing. I agree with everything he wants to do in these arenas. The unintended consequences of these actions will, however, make the unemployment rate shoot through the roof. In Alaska, more than 50% of the jobs are government jobs. That’s a lot of people looking for something to do. For this, I honestly don’t have an answer.
Thank you again for all of your insight and questions. It really made me think. I still stand by my decision though. I am supporting Ron Paul in 08.
Everyone must stop saying libertarian is different from conservativism. The term exists only to separate unyeilding conservatives from those who use the word “conservative” loosely. Ryan must check his premises and perhaps re-evaluate his views on “practicality” and “reality”. Idealism is not unreasonable. It is most reasonable.
Ryan, you seem like a quote guy. Based on my extensive objective research and observation of Ron Paul, some seem irrelevant, and many seem out of context. I will try to explain myself further momentarily.
I will begin by saying that compromise is what has ruined this country from the inside out. Ryan, all troops must be pulled out from all of the world. No compromise. A government has no business being everywhere. Even if it did, IT CANNOT BE AFFORDED, and that cannot be denied by you. As a conservative, you must be against welfare on principle. It is no different than our babysitting the world. How do you relieve your shoulders of the weight of the world? Put it down. Then, if it attacks you, kill it without mercy.
The death penalty – barely an issue, not something Ron Paul is running on, with issues of such greater significance facing us. To use this seems a cop-out.
Be careful what you say. Ron Paul does not advocate the gold standard, but rather hard assets. Oil has not increased in price relative to hard assets. Everytime anyone complains “oil is just so expensive”, they don’t know that what they mean is “our dollar just buys nothing these days”. This is inflation, directly caused by the abandonment of hard assets and irresponsible goverment. NOT ARGUABLE.
Ron Pauls attitude is not “blame america” in the slightest. He knows americans have nothing to do with it. He’s blaming the government which has been involved in there forever. Yes Muslims are insane regardlessly, but to deny antagonism and adding fuel to their religious fire is absolutely irrational. It seems most “conservatives” are uncomfortable with straying from the standard war stance. I was there. Then I took my blinders off and faced reality. Please follow suit.
Why has U.S. goverment ever been there? Is it oil interests? Alliance with Isreal? Neither are anything our gov has any business being engaged in. Thomas Jefferson sum it up well when he advocates commerce and honest frienship with all nations, but entangling alliance with none.
According to your quote, Ron Paul is not as annoyed as you when a Mexican is speaking Spanish. WHO CARES? What might a president ever do regarding something that can only be classified as subjectively annoying? Government can’t protect your comfort zone. Let’s talk relevant.
I couldn’t agree more with getting rid of nearly all federal organizations. The FBI? I know very little about it’s efficiency and effectiveness, so I will leave that one for further analysis, as the only government functions I support are military and justice functions.
Elimination of IRS, income tax, spending are “a great idea but not feasible”. How can an unfeasible idea be great. You sound like the people who use “idealism” as a negative word…Are you then an anti-idealist? Furthermore, NONE of it is too extreme, and it is all imperative. You need to begin to get philosophically into the ideas that, as a “conservative” you must support. Capitalism, freedom, blah blah blah. These principles are worthless if you don’t believe in them FULLY. If you did, RON PAUL WOULD BE YOUR SOLE OPTION. All the candidates talk the talk. Ron Paul walks the walk.
You proabably talk about Capitalism and Freedom. I BELIEVE and put absolute trust in them. I will not waver. We can’t work with liberals. They must be defeated. If you are willing to settle, I encourage you to leave, so you won’t hinder our struggle for pure, unadulturated excellence.
For more on convictiction, idealism, the failure that follows compromise, and capitalism/freedom, see Ayn Rand. most inportantly…
WAKE UP
Camel, I’ll address these things one point at a time.
You are right, our deficit spending is way out of control and the fed just keeps exasperating the problem by thinking that they can create money out of thin air. But, Glenn Beck had Ron on his show last night and he once again talked about the gold standard and his support for reverting back to it or something similar. While idealistic, it’s not terribly realistic in this day and age.
I agree with him on that point. A good trade system is great for a country and the economy, and I vehemently disagree with giving to countries out of the kindness of our hearts or because it is our responsibility. It’s for much of the same reasons that I think we should tell the UN where to stick it.
Yeah, but it’s a narrow view of things. Did we exacerbate the situation? Probably, but no matter what we do there will always be people who get pissed off and want to take some sort of action against us. If we start trying to manage our nation by weighing everything we do against how much it will piss somebody off, we’re really going to be in trouble.
I think we can pull back a lot, but we still need forward deployed bases in some areas. But again, I’m ex-military so I probably have differing views than you do. Personally, I feel that global security is the best answer to our national security. We should not be in the business of policing the world. If the UN wants to do that then so be it. Civil wars, localized conflicts, whatever.. Should have nothing to do with us. But we should be in the business of threat management, and that’s where top-notch intelligence and analysis should come into play.
I don’t see it. Europe would never have survived without our help. By the time we came into the war, England was pretty much the only force standing against the Nazi regime. Besides, don’t forget that we were attacked first and I just can’t see turning the other cheek over something like that.
From Meet the Press 12/23/07:
Q: When you ran for president in 1988, you said, “As in our country’s first 150 years, there shouldn’t be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work.” You’ve changed your view.
A: And during that campaign I got into trouble with Libertarians because I said there may well be a time when immigration is like an invasion and we have to treat it differently. My approach to immigration is somewhat different than the others. Mine is you deal with it economically We’re in worse shape now because we subsidize immigration. We give food stamps, Social Security, free medical care, free education and amnesty. So you subsidize it, and you have a mess. Conditions have changed. And I think this means that we should look at immigration differently. It’s an economic issue more than anything. If our economy was in good health, I don’t think there’d be an immigration problem. We’d be looking for workers and we would be very generous.
I agree that we provide too many incentives for illegals to come here and for people to hire them, and I certainly agree that it has much to do with government over regulation and interference with the markets. But, don’t be too idealistic here… many people will still try to save a buck wherever they can and go with the lowest cost/lowest bidder etc.
Agreed. We waste more than we legitimately use most of the time. And I would certainly like to see frivolous spending reigned in. Yes, if we cut spending and streamlined the tax system, the IRS would be obsoleted and hopefully be phased out or reduced to a small entity that manages the flow of tax revenue.
That is true, but that may not be a bad thing. Government is too big. It should never be the largest employer in an area. I don’t know about Wisconsin, but government is the largest industry in Minnesota encompassing 1/6th of the total workforce in itself… And since government doesn’t actually produce or contribute to society, I just can’t see that as beneficial in any way. Plus, it continues to grow because they lure people into jobs with the best benefits out there – and all on the taxpayer’s dime. I would have no hurt feelings over a drastic cut in government.
objectivelyspeaking,
I’m not gong to repeat myself as I think addressed some of your points in my response to Camel above. But I will address some of your points head-on.
As you can read above, I think we can withdraw some – if not most – of our troops from abroad. I agree, we should not be the world’s police, nor should we be in the business of being the great protectors. I’m the least compassionate person you’ll ever meet, save for maybe Camel, but I still feel that we need to perform threat management operations.
To you, but not to me. It’s awfully narrow-minded of you to say something like that. I cannot stand behind a political leader who doesn’t support capital punishment. This is something I feel passionately about, so for you to minimize it is somewhat insulting.
I do. i would like to see a president who is interested in fostering an American culture. I don’t like this “anything goes” mentality. I don’t like the fact that it’s becoming difficult to define America because we have been losing our culture. A president should not project to the world that they can come here and not have to become Americans. that’s not how you build a strong nation.
The FBI is charged with investigating federal crimes and interstate crimes where local jurisdiction is irrelevant. Perhaps they have extended their bounds too much in recent years, but the fact remains that we need a federal law enforcement agency that deals with crimes that are above the jurisdiction of local police.
There are many great ideas that simply won’t work. Bear in mind that I say won’t, not can’t. There’s a difference. I would love to see an abolition of income taxes and the IRS, but that would take an act of Congress and ratification by the states, which I don’t see happening so long as there are liberals in power anywhere. So what needs to be done is a severe rework of things to avoid the headaches and red tape that would trip up any attempt at total abolition if not halt it completely.
Don’t insult me. I can fully believe in these things philosophically and idealistically, but you always have to face reality when dealing with the philosophical and ideological roots of things like these. If you can’t get the people on board, if you can’t get Congress on board, if you can’t get the states on board to ratify things… You can be as ideological as you want, but what good does it do if it won’t accomplish anything in the real world?
So with that in mind, you have to stay true to your ideals but temper them with the reality of the world around you.
Furthermore, I have been a rabid follower of Ayn Rand for years and believe in freedom and capitalism to the fullest extent, but never to the point of absurdity.
Ryan, you’re right. I apologize for my rudeness in the last post. I was already worked up and mainly tired. I recognize that insult will not foster any further understanding between us.
Surely, we must have many congruent ideas. It seems that our disagreement falls on the issue of how to reach our goals. I must point out that Ron Paul acknowledges that the social programs that have been instated cannot be yanked out from under the dependant. He thouroughly recognizes that it’s a process, and that much of these ideals won’t be reached through a classic band-aid rip. The difference is that he wants to begin this process now.
I am simply unsatisfied with the typical conservatives. A tax cut here, a welfare reform there does nothing to further what is right. I feel that an entire history of republican presidents shows this. Back and forth can’t win the tug o’ war. We move closer and closer to socialism. I think this must be because of a lack of understanding by many. The presidents we elect radiate no recognizeable principle, so the people who don’t already know it, don’t see what a fundamentalist knows to be right.
The solution? I actually think of this as the beginnings necessary for change. I propose we get as many votes as possible for the one person who will advance his ideas unapologetically and make these views known. The drawbacks are that because of our current attitudes, he will receive many independant and republican votes, but probably not enough to win. The republican party could lose this round, but it may be key to showing the party what we really want. In addition to this, the rest of the country will have 4 years to see the mess that comes with democrats. Maybe Ron Paul is not your guy for reasons like the death penalty, but he’s the only shot at getting our ideas on the economy heard. Romney, McCain, Huckabee will not do it. I know because they don’t right now in debates or speeches.
A reformation of a country likely begins with a reformation of approach and thought. I just want to get to it.
Now I’ll admit what I think will happen in reality. This paragraph is just essentially food for thought and does not represent what I think to be fact. Let me make clear that I fear what the democrats will do with the next four year if they control them. It may be worth the cost. I do not remember where I heard this, but I think it has merit. The next four years will either accomplish nothing or it will become worse. Let’s let them blame it on a democrat. If another republican wins, this stagnant party will only drive more away. If, in reality, it is impossible for us to start doing, let’s at least start showing what we want to do.
The democrats make no apologies for their desires to change the country. Their goals are well known, and they are not reluctant to demonize the anti-federalist. However, many flock to them. It seems that people are attracted to the idea of change. I know I am, but most people don’t realize which change is right as they have likely never heard the opposition. The dems are willing to be extreme. Why aren’t we?
That’s all of my ranting for this morning…..
Wow! Not sure how I missed this post hehe. I think I’ll stay out of the political arguments but on philosophy I think I can weigh in.
Objectivelyspeaking speaks of Ayn Rand and obviously has taken objectivism to an extreme. I caution you in taking anything to the extreme, unwaveringly. You risk losing everything in the process and becoming just like those you despise, opposite but the same in principal.
Conservatives, liberals, whatever other names you want to call people only serve one purpose and that is to segregate. I applaud all those that have the drive to stay behind a goal but you can only hurt others if you do not compromise your principles.
I actually subscribe to the objective point of view of Ayn Rand but mainly apply it to my arguments against religion (i.e. objective atheology…look up anton thorn for more on that). Anyway, my point there is that I take what is good about certain philosophies and leave behind what is not congruent with the greater welfare. That is my perogative being a moderate. I belive in capital punishment and am pro choice. I believe smoking bans are better for everyone and I believe that there are times you have to blow something up to finish things. You can see that you cannot really label me and I prefer it that way.
Stop the madness and closed minded extremism (by the way objectiveness to the extreme loses its objectivism). Conservative to the extreme has no room for free thought, for that matter no extreme has room for free thought. Liberal to the extreme has the same issues…are you starting to get my point?
Spawn, you’re right on that any extreme is bad juju. Things need to be balanced to be effective. If you go too far one direction or another you simply get rendered ineffective, and then the point is lost anyway.
So, I’m actually going to write a full post on this today (I don’t know how often you read this) but you and Camel should be happy… I’ve had a change of heart and am joining the Ron Paul camp.
Woo!
Hmm, well Camel will be pleased but the jury is still out for me. I think Ron Paul is a straight shooter but like I mentioned somewhere else his strict adherence to an unwavering constitutional decision making process (that’s a mouth full) makes me nervous.
His stance on Roe vs. Wade is just wrong, imo. The idea of reducing big government in favor of allowing local and state government to make the decision is sound but in the pro-choice/pro-life debate it’s shortsighted. Allowing the inevitable checkerboard of legal/illegal abortion clinics across America is a bad idea and this is just one example.
Well, to be honest it should make you nervous… However, I think that we need to move back at least a little closer to the Constitution and start remembering that it is more than just a decorative piece of paper. I think that somebody who is a strict constructionist can be adequately tempered by congress to create something of a happy medium.
Conversely, a President who folds and enables congress to do whatever they want (i.e. McCain or the dems) would be really scary.
As for federalism, I see what you’re saying but I have to disagree a bit because I like the original intent of the states as being semi-autonomous. The states were never meant to all be identical just with different names. If that were the case, why have states at all? The point was supposed to be that if you didn’t like the way your state was run or what your state stood for, you could move to a state that fit your wants or needs.
You have a good point Ryan (about being tempered by congress). I shall have to think on that.
Btw, I don’t consider myself a republican, much to the chagrin of my Dad. That plays heavily in my decision but more importantly I believe in voting for someone who will weigh each decision carefully and act based on the greater good, NOT just party lines.
Well, I’m not a republican either. I’m a Conservative first, and a republican second. I tend to vote republican because they have [traditionally] been the conservative option – while dems tend to be the exact opposite of how I feel.
I have, however, voted third-party on a number of occasions if the republican candidate doesn’t fit my conservative views. It may just be a symbolic vote, but at least it was in good conscious.
To be clear, I didn’t vote for Bush either time, but I did vote (and it sure as hell wasn’t for the dem).
Btw, I have yet to confirm this but Ron Paul has been quoted as saying he would like to end the seperation of church and state. That the first amendment states only that government cannot interfere with religious affairs. He believes the “left” fight to oppress christianity in a largely christian nation.
This is unacceptable thought processes. Yes, there are quite a few that want to stamp out religion soley based on the fact it might offend someone. Total B.S. I could care less if I offend someone with my atheism, though I try not to. Anyway, the seperation of church and state is and should be protected with extreme fervor. I will not be voting for Ron Paul or the “reverand”, or the mormon, or the corpse. Ya, I’m name calling…did I offend someone?
As an aside, I find this very exciting http://www.atheists.org/conference/ and am looking forward to hearing Richard Dawkins speak. I’m hoping to ask at least one question…”How do we move forward as a people/group/world promoting atheism without relying on the tactics of theists? That would be fear, dogmas, marching, etc…”.
Spawn,
Your premise “I applaud all those that have the drive to stay behind a goal but you can only hurt others if you do not compromise your principles” really scares the crap out of me. By definition, if they are principles, they can’t be compromised. To say there are no absolutes is just absurd. I know for a fact that you love your son. That is one of your principles. Are you saying that there is any way possible for you to compromise that? I know there is not.
Saying that objectivelyspeaking has taken objectivism to an extreme is an odd thing to say. It sounds like he believes in those principles and tries to live by them. Somehow we have taken the word extreme and made it a bad thing. If you have principles, you are extreme. If you have no principles, than you don’t actually believe in anything. Through time society has taken words and altered their meaning to slander those people who do what they say and stand up for what they believe. I honestly hope that someday people will look at me and say that I am extreme. That will tell me that my moral code is obvious and that everyone who knows me knows that I actually stand for something.
The problem we have in this day and age is that everyone in politics compromises all of their principles. Ron Paul does not. He has clear principles that he has always lived and voted by.
As for RP’s ending of separation of church and state……At first I had an issue with this as well. Then I picked up a copy of the constitution. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” What relates to separation of church and state I can’t figure out. It explicitly says that there shall be no laws made about religion. What the hell does that have to do with the bastardization and rhetoric that we constantly hear?
I personally don’t care what religion anyone is. I don’t care if someone in office wants to dress up like a Christmas tree in December and preach from the pulpit. I just don’t want one dime of taxpayer dollars going to any of it. I don’t want the taxpayer to put up a Christmas tree or put up crosses or fund them in any way. That’s where the line should be drawn, not trying to separate church and state.
Maybe if we wanted to call it something for the masses, we should call it “separation of church and state funds”.
Well to be honest here I think we should abolish religion. How’s that for principles? I am a die-hard atheist and think that religion is a bunch of hogwash. Whatever though, right? Is that what you think I’m saying? Nooooo, not at all, and I will not compromise my principles when it comes to religion. I do have the foresight to understand the consequences of my principles though. Will I confuse my son, seeing that he attends church with his mother’s family? Perhaps but I deem it necessary that he see both sides and makes up his own mind (incidentally, I think I’m making progress on him).
Do all who do not compromise their principles have the ability to understand the consequences? I doubt it. In fact, I would say that those who are absoluetly unwavering could care less to actually walk in others’ shoes.
I like to think I keep an open mind about most things, including religion. The fact is that I have a number of topics that, without absolute proof, I will not waver on (smoking and religion to name a couple).
My Mother and I had an hour long conversation about religion when she found out I was atheist. It became quite clear to me that she had made up her mind at an early age that God existed. She credited God with her success in life and for the smaller things as well. I asked her, “why don’t you give yourself any credit for your own success?”. She really didn’t have an answer other than trying to relate it to God and/or faith. It seems absurd to me that we can do so well in life and not take any credit for our own success. Uh oh, I digress from the political topics, Ryan you should start a religion thread hehe.
My point is that religion should have nothing to do with politics whatsoever and it would seem that you agree with me Camel. A “largely christian nation” should not be a basis for political decsion making. I have the right to a no-compromise ideal but in political office one must bend to the will of the people at times. Oh yes, we’ll vote him out if he/she doesn’t do like we ask…blah blah. The damage is already done, reversing a decision left over by a wayward politician is easier said than done.
Be careful who you vote for…ugh, I can’t believe I just said that…I hate politics.
I agree that religion should have nothing to do with polotics. I also think that politics should not impeed religion. It goes both ways on that catagory.
My point to you above on having principles is there are some that just cant be shaken. Polocies and principles are not the same thing. I keep an open mind on most things, but some I am unwavering on. The ones that are unwavering are the ones called principles.
BTW….Happy birthday spawn! (you old bastard)
Heh, thanks for the birthday wishes
I’m not old, I still get carded…and that’s the story I’m sticking to.
I think religion and government can exist side by side so long as they don’t cross. Government’s role should be to ensure that people have the right to worship or believe as they see fit – even if that belief is in nothing (a belief in itself). Government should not endorse or encourage any particular faith, nor should it discourage nor specifically stand against a belief.
The first amendment was put in place to ensure religious rights, not to protect one person from another’s religion. That is a personal issue, not an issue for government.
I just want to add something because I feel it needs clarification. Atheism is not a “belief” in the standard definition of things. Consider this:
As a child I can hold a “belief” that the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus are real characters. I can have a “belief” that Unicorns exist and that Ghosts and Goblins etc. are also real.
As an adult I can hold a “belief” that any one of the numerous gods purported, do actually exist, and that humans have an immortal “soul”. Some even have a “belief” in UFO’s, the power of crystals and a myriad of other unproven paranormal activity.
Atheists do not accept that any of the above imaginary creatures or powers do exist as no scientific evidence is extant in support of those propositions. This is not a “belief”, it is just lack of scientific evidence in their support.
True, it is not a belief by the standard definition of the word, but I still think that it takes a certain level of belief to to dismiss such things as well.
Now we’re getting really philosophical though… Do you want to go there? I’m willing
I’ve been asking you to go there for a while now but all you keep talking about is politics and smoking
I do have a belief that someday we will go there just for the fun of it. All it will take is some news article or youtube clip.
I’ll be around and waiting…