Redstate

While it might be nice to go and hear some interesting speakers (the 3pm panel discussion on “Conservative Health Care Reform: Dead on Arrival?” would be of particular interest to me), it’s not particularly important that a candidate go there anymore than they decide to appear (or not appear) on a particular radio program.

It’s where the candidates stand on the issues that matter and how effective they would be in advancing those issues which is what’s important. The rest of this is just a distraction for people who like to feel like they’re “on the inside” because they went to the right parties and shook hands with the right people.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

apt to appoint justices who will overturn Roe than Hillary. So while it is too early to be 100% decided right now I think the message sent to the party to move right would be more importan than the difference between Hillary and Rudy. I am leaning towards voting third pary if Rudy wins the nomination.

You'll accomplish just as much as did voting Libertarian in '00 and '04. It's just indulging a snit that relegates you to irrelevance either way, just a question of which flavor of tantrum you find more personally gratifying.

major parties who they are losing votes to and they can move in the direction of those votes. At this point I feel that if Rudy is nominated I will have been evicted from the " big tent".

That would be deliberately using your vote to have your country lose the war in Iraq, as a way to teach the Republican party a lesson. You'd threaten to shaft our soldiers as a way to intimidate Republican primary voters against nominating someone you disagree with on domestic issues?

I'm not opposed in all circumstances to your tactic of electing the candidate that's even worse for the country in the short term, in order to influence political alignments more favorably in the long term.

What makes that tactic idiotic now is the fact that we're in the middle of a war. American soldiers are dying right now in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that has to take more immediate priority than your bank shot to help Democrats win the next election in order to improve domestic policy 5 or 10 years down the road.

Of course third-party voters include a disproportionate number of narcissists who think how they cast their vote is more about "staying true to their principles" rather than what's good for their country. For that kind of extremist, American soldiers dying unnecessarily is a minor price to pay for the more important issue of punishing the Republicans for nominating someone who's wrong on some domestic dispute between Americans.

Fortunately such unpatriotic extremists are a trivial fraction of those who might vote Republican, so we can laugh at them throwing their tantrums without electoral consequence.

At this point I feel that if Rudy is nominated I will have been evicted from the " big tent".

A truly narcissistic definition of the "big tent" - you would rely on Republicans who disagree with you on domestic issue X (or agree with you but think it less important than America winning the war) to help elect nominees who agree with you on X. But if a nominee disagrees with you on X, you'd rather let the Democrat win.

So it's unpatriotic to vote for the veiws I want expressed by my President.Interesting.

So I just suck it up for the "common good" of the country. Well guess what I don't do "common good", that's what Liberals say. Secondly, I never brought up the war. Which I have my own issues with. But that's besides the point.

My point being is the simple fact that none of the canidates that you and others here on this wonderful and great blog are cheerleading for are Conservative. None what so ever.

You, my friend sound like Sean Hannity to me. Just another person who thinks, "Republican good, Democrat bad"..

consevatives but they are all different forms of different conservatives. I am afraid that your definition of conservatives is probably pretty much outdated. By the way I do agree with you on the wider issue of third parties.

Sure there is different forms of conservatism. But the views expressed by the ones who led us to Victory, have gone out the window, in favor of more Big Government.

Are my views outdated? Real Limited Government, Extream lower taxes, and being left alone have been the main tenits of Conservatism. That's what I believe in. And the Libertarian party expresses that view.

definition of conservatism. That does not mean that your views are wrong. Just not what is meant by conservatism in this day and age. Also why do you say these are the views of those who led us to victory. For the six last we won on Compasionate Conservatism.

the Libertarian Party but I just don't. I think they're dead wrong on their principles concerning abortion and foreign policy and their party organization hasn't been competent at all. They really missed a good opportunity in 1998 when everyone was fed up with "politicians" in general.

I think in the next election cycle we may have to resign ourselves to another candidate to the left of Ronald Reagan, but that's just the times we live in, I suppose. Rudy or Mitt would still be far better choices than the entire field of declared or anticipated Democrat candidates. I'll vote for the GOP nominee in any case.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

The times we live in our what we make of them. Goldwater, Reagan, and Gingrich did not go with the flow, they believed in something and made it happen.

Compassionate....make that big government conservatism is why we are out of power in Congress and have a president with terrible approval ratings.

Molon Labe!

which we're all aware of.

It could be worse. At least we're enjoying a healthy economy and a tax policy that's increasing revenue by being a little more business-friendly. This contrasts with the Eisenhower administration, which refused to cut stupid-high tax rates and (ingeniously) tacked the words "national security" on every large domestic spending and public works proposal.

Much more could be done to cut spending, of course. Even if someone just looks for a cheaper supplier of paperclips and such, it would help.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Just FYI, the Libertarian Party doesn't have a position on abortion. And their Presidential nominee in 2004 was pro-life.

______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

http://www.myelectionanalysis.com

The party with the 3rd highest party membership is the Constitution Party. Your concerns you have with the Libertarian Party would likely not exist with the Constitution Party.

Why be defeated before the election and say "I think in the next election cycle we may have to resign ourselves to another candidate to the left of Ronald Reagan, but that's just the times we live in, I suppose"? Why say this before we even run a candidate? Let the democrats be defeatist. Lets put our best conservative forward and see if we win. You underestimate the electorate.

I made it pretty clear in the post you're replying to, at least for anyone with minimal reading comprehension, what I was characterizing as "unpatriotic":

narcissists who think how they cast their vote is more about "staying true to their principles" rather than what's good for their country. For that kind of extremist, American soldiers dying unnecessarily is a minor price to pay for the more important issue of punishing the Republicans for nominating someone who's wrong on some domestic dispute between Americans.

Fortunately such unpatriotic extremists are a trivial fraction of those who might vote Republican ...

So it's unpatriotic to vote for the veiws I want expressed by my President.

Only if it's a vote you should know makes it more likely America will lose the war. (The premise here is that helping America's wartime enemies defeat America is unpatriotic.) If you believe that Hillary/Obabama/Edwards is more likely to lead America to victory than the Republican nominee in the general election, you should vote for the Democrat rather than making your vote irrelevant with whichever joke is the Libertarian nominee.

Well excuse me for being unpatriotic, and not totally being for the War in Iraq or Iran or whatver country Isreal, ooops I mean America is at war with these days. How meathead. That's my Roman Catholic speaking.

That's rather childish to think that. But domestic policy is and should be top priority. The war will take care of itself. Reguardless who's in office.

Alas, my AIPAC masters insist that I remove you before your insights on how the Jews run the world infect our more asleep readers. I'd say nothing personal, except that I'm a very enthusiastic neo-Zionist lackey.

Also: it's Israel, dunderhead.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

My Roman Catholic is not down with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Man, Moe beat me to ya. Too bad.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

you haven't cracked the DaVinci Code yet. Then you'd know the real truth.

Harry Reid is to ethics reform what HIV was to free love!

Take the offense. Make the dems pick someone who can beat us.

I can't in good conscience vote for a Giuliani. So your guilt trip carries little with me at least.

Asking me to vote for Giuliani over clinton is like asking the guy in the electric chair "How do you want it, AC or DC?"

Giuliani is not an option.

...but that was a more pointed question 120 years ago.

Which, yes, has nothing to do with your comment. It is interesting, though.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

only form of conservatism.

Never said it was. But the last time I checked, since 1960 when Barry Goldwater put out one of the greatest political books of all time. That outlined what Conservatism was. I'd have to say the Libertarian party looks more like it to me. Then the 21st. Century GOP.

I think the word has largely changed its meaning. Some civic text books have now been teaching a political map of four philosophies- Conservative, Libertarian, Populist, and Liberal. Populists are for more government in both ecconomics and social issues, Libertarians for less government in both aspects, Conservative less in ecconomics, more in social issues, and liberals for more in ecconomics and less in the social aspects. This seems to me like a pretty good generalization of modern politics( actually though I think, the study that formulated the theory was done in the 70s). It has to be taken with a grain of salt, but I think it is better than the simplistic liberalism vs. conservatism.

When he remarried, he remarried a very liberal woman who changed his mind on some issues, or it was reported as such. I like to think of the Goldwater of the sixties and seventies, not the eighties and nineties.

The Goldwater of "Conscience of a Conservative" was more conservative than libertarian.

The Republican Party changed, and it has only changed more since. Goldwater did attack many Republicans late in life because they became more statist and less about personal liberty. And I am not defending Goldwater the man, just the ideas from Conscience of a Conservative and his presidential run. This is NOT about personality, but ideas. Rudy is all about personality.

What we need to do now is talk about the ideas of Reagan Goldwater. Are we simply going to abandon those ideas? Some want to make our party more "modern", aka, more Democrat. I say we battle this poor idea and elect Reagan Republicans. I am not saying those that call themselves "Reagan Republicans", I am saying those that know what that term means.

Molon Labe!

That Rudy is closer to Goldwater's rather libertarian positions than most of the other republican candidates.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I guess over the pro choice and pro gay ideas. Well, I am not a pure libertarian at all. I am a libertarian right conservative so to me he is all wet. With Rudy we get more civil libertarian junk and no libertarian conservative ideas.

I want libertarian CONSERVATIVES running our party. Rudy is a gun grabber and he loves centralized authority, he is not MY kind of libertarian in any way.

Molon Labe!

Just don't delude yourself that you matter, any more than if you stayed home on election day.

Libertarian Party? It's just entertainment. (Sometimes quite amusing entertainment)

is ALWAYS better than staying home.

A vote for a third party tells us something about the voter's beliefs and policy preferences. Staying home tells us nothing, because we can't tell whether the person stayed home to send a message or merely because they're lazy / indifferent.

A noticeably large vote for the Libertarians or Constitution Party could send a message to the GOP as to the direction those voters want to see it go. The GOP might move in that direction if the GOP lost and the third party's vote total was greater than the Dems' margin of victory in key states.

This is not to say that I anticipate the LP or Constitution Party actually getting enough votes to swing the election or otherwise send the GOP a strong message in '08. That seems doubtful.

I plan, once again, to vote for the Republican to avert the even greater disaster of Queen Hillary or Obama et al. winning.

But my patience (perhaps it's gullibility) is not unlimited. If the next Republican President continues to expand government spending, I'll have to conclude, finally, that the rhetoric of "limited government" and "fiscal conservatism" is just that, rhetoric. Even more important, if the next Republican President continues to acquiesce in the Third World invasion of America like Bush has, I will reach the overdue conclusion that the GOP elite has no loyalty to America and real Americans.

Then it WILL be time to stop voting for the GOP.

A noticeably large vote for the Libertarians or Constitution Party could send a message to the GOP as to the direction those voters want to see it go. The GOP might move in that direction if the GOP lost and the third party's vote total was greater than the Dems' margin of victory in key states.

I agree you have a valid point there. I've actually voted Libertarian a few times myself for just that reason. My point in this and other subthreads of this blog was was that such tactics are a bad idea in the middle of a war, when American soldiers are at risk and winning the war takes more immediate priority over some "bank shot to help Democrats win the next election in order to improve domestic policy 5 or 10 years down the road." Most Republican voters know that, so there's no danger many would vote third party in a wartime Presidential election.

If it wasn't for the war, I might well have favored electing Nancy Pelosi as our Speaker In Law as a way to slap some sense into the House Republicans. As we've already seen with Murtha et. al., for the war it would have been better to keep our gang of Republican idiots in charge for a few more years.

Maybe I was also laying on the derision a little thick in reply to RegulaRon because he was such an obvious kook. (A little later in the discussion he made it even clearer with his International Zionist Conspiracy meltdown.)

I think you also make a reasonable point in your other comment, about it being ok to make a statement with a third party vote in elections that aren't close, where you're sure it wouldn't affect the outcome.

The majority of a president’s duties have to do with foreign policy in one form or another. Going to an event like that where you’re meeting leaders of other countries is a good way of making connections and building relationships, particularly when environmental issues are taking on an even more prominent role in the international sphere.

I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.

don't set foreign policy, but I know what you meant. GLOBE's goal/mission was very commendable and quite lofty when it was first founded by Sen. John Heinz, along with other legislators from the U.S. and parliamentarians from the other G-8 countries, in 1989. Since GLOBE's founding, the politics of climate change has gone way beyond the science.

The case could be made for a conservative politician to attend such meetings if his/her purpose/goal is to protect the economic interests of the U.S. and defend Her sovereignty against "stealth attacks" from the "International Community." Otherwise, one may lend credibility when none was intended.

Following the First Meeting of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, GLOBE lobbied for a CO² / Energy tax in the European Parliament aimed at reducing Carbon Dioxide emissions.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, better known as the Earth Summit, subsequently brought forth the Kyoto Protocol.

Returning to Sen. McCain and the subject of this post.

Let's look at a few of Sen. McCain's pronouncements following the meeting. Also, take note of GLOBE's continued support for a "Global Energy Tax" and the "Kyoto Protocol."

World 'at tipping point over global warming'

A leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination declared the debate on global warming "over" yesterday and said that the US would act to save the environment.

Senator John McCain's speech at a summit on green policies indicated a crucial change in US political opinion towards climate change.

"I am convinced that we have reached the tipping point and that the Congress of the United States will act with the agreement of the administration," said Mr McCain, who is a favoured candidate in next year's presidential primaries.

"The debate is over, my friends. Now the question is: what do we do? Do we act, do we care enough about the young people of the next generation to act seriously and meaningfully, or are we going to just continue this debate and this discussion?"

(Snip…)

The Global Legislators' Organisation for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE) called for a new worldwide agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, which expires in 2012. Among the panel's recommendations is a new global market to limit and trade carbon emissions.

GLOBE believes that developing countries should set targets to reduce their own emissions. The Kyoto Treaty on climate change was never ratified by the US Senate, largely because it did not require countries like China and India to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels.

"In our view, the evidence that man is changing the climate is now beyond doubt. But we must be clear that climate change is a global issue and there is an obligation on us all to take action, in line with our capabilities and historic responsibilities," the group said in a statement.

(emphasis added)

Apparently, Sen. McCain has bought into the GlobalWarming™ hysteria, and I would really like to hear him defend those words and clarify his position on climate change, as well as many other policy issues... at CPAC.

***

“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

I have often criticized myself for voting for a third-party candidate. I was all ears, because the other guy was all lips. What I got for my trouble was Bill Clinton, and maybe Hillary Clinton. Never again.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

then yes, for God's sake, vote Republican.

But if you live in a state where the GOP has no realistic chance, why vote for the lesser of two evils?

Thanks to the electoral college, there's little point to voting for a statist or sellout Republican for President in New York or California.

Patriots who live in those states know that the electoral votes are going to the Democrats anyway. They should vote for what they actually believe in, and send a message to the GOP about where they should stand.

If your state's a slam-dunk for Hillary, vote for the Libertarians or the Constitution Party. If they got millions of votes (let alone tens of millions), the media would have to cover it, and the GOP would have to take notice.

...Unless you intend to pull a lever for a (D) in a Primary. Period. Voting for a 3rd Party in CA in a General Election accomplishes nothing. In fact, it accomplishes less than nothing in CA, because there is an unusually large number of wackos already voting for 3rd parties (and generating absolutely no popular notice anyway), so it's pointless.

I think if you are a Republican in CA, the only way to send a message is to vote in your Primary for your preferred GOP candidate. Outside of that, it's an exercise in futility no matter how you look at it...