Where are the Libertarians? by SignyM

A lot of us Libertarians just don't give a shit anymore. People keep voting for democrats and republicans without question. They get what they deserve. I've become comfortable living free despite the government. It's not as hard as you might think. Certainly not as hard as convincing the sheep to quit voting for republicrats.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 4:22 PM

CAIUS

Yeah, who cares what they do, both parties are equally guilty. The libertarians are staying home and making more ammo.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 7:22 PM

Small govt. republican right here. Check. In an out-of-power way. A way out of power way.

I think Sununu is there, and Larry Craig. McCain Hagel, Graham, Chafee, Snowe, Collins, Voinovich and Lott. There are maybe some others about. But yeah, in a minority way.

Anyway, Bush's legalize watergate campaign, I thought I posted something about this. I mean, what can you say? Bush. I mean it says it all.

Bush. Clinton. Bush. Clinton. Bush.

GH Bush. B. Clinton. GW Bush. H. Clinton. J. Bush.

After that I guess Chelsey will be old enough to run.

it's a duo-dynasty.

DC4BS,

because Clinton told people who he was tapping, Bush didn't. This means that Bush was probably tapping Kerry, and Soros. Clinton might have tapped Dole, I don't know, probably did.

KHYRON,

I didn't. Like Clinton more. I can't stand either one. Clinton was the fiscal nightmare Bush is but then Bush hasn't killed as many people. Not for want of trying. I'll grant after 8 years he may have killed more. Clinton bombed more places. Clinton bombed Texas. That was pretty uncalled for. Then, anyways.

Quote:

People keep voting for democrats and republicans without question.

I definitely used to feel this way. But the major parties are the only way to get anything accomplished. The mistake the sheep are making is not signing up to Mommy Dem or Papa Gop, it's that once they do, they vote for the loser that gets nominated.

People have to stop fearing the enemy just because he's evil. After Clinton and Bush we should all know that you're own party's guy is evil too.

So, the primary is the battle. Win that, and then vote for them in the general. Lose that, look at the winner, if they're evil, don't vote for them.

The problem with libertarian ammo theory is next time you get a Cliton he'll come by and bomb you. Bush will only bomb you if you're outside the country. Or at least in a blue state. Hmm. NY, 9/11. Hmm.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 8:39 PM

Where are the Libertarians? Where they have always been bitching from the sidelines and doing exactly nothing. I sat and watched their convention a few years ago and was amazed just how like the old SDP they were -- people too ineffectual to be in charge of something who are complaining that they are not in charge!

As for Republicans --- Big Government is like the one Ring. While you don't have it's power you believe that it is evil and pledge to destroy it, but when you have it in your possession you start thinking "yeah I can use this for GOOD!" and before you know it you are half naked, living in a cave and eating raw fish (or is that just Tom DeLay???)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 9:02 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Why is it a heinous crime when Bush taps thousands of international calls and emails after 9/11 happened in order to try to prevent another one but it's completely ignored that Clinton tapped millions of international AND DOMESTIC calls and emails after the first trade center bombing?

Not a big supporter of Clinton here- I know he did some skanky stuff- but this is one thing I never heard of. First of all, it would be impossible to tap "millions" of calls because you would need "millions" of listeners, and at least thousands of translators. Secondly, I tried looking this up, and while I found a lot of hue and cry about what Clinton PROPOSED to do

Quote:
For two decades, lingering popular wariness forestalled any expansion of wiretapping powers. But after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, President Clinton, warning of international terrorism, proposed measures similar to those George Bush seeks today. Civil libertarians in Congress refused to pass them, but Clinton redoubled his efforts after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and again after the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing. Yet Congress held firm, giving Clinton none of the new wiretapping powers he sought. What the bombings of 1993, 1995, and 1996 failed to achieve, the atrocities of 2001 may bring to fruition.

http://hnn.us/articles/366.html
www.cqpress.com/context/articles/cqr19950721.html and some of what he HAD done

Quote:
Granting new powers to the FISA court was accomplished quietly and treated as a non-event in the national media. The lack of reporting was somehow fitting, though, following as it did the silent debate last year when Congress rubberstamped the annual Intelligence Authorization Act

www.monitor.net/monitor/10-30-95/fisa.html I haven't found any- and mean zip, nada, nic- about this alleged massive wiretapping program. So, do you have a link to info about this?

BTW, if you check out these links, you'll find the same people (ACLU, Molly Ivens, etc) complaining about loss of freedom under Clinton as under Bush. So, I don't know where the Libertarians have been but at least the Liberals are consistent.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 11:09 PM

HAOLEHAOLE

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Where are the Libertarians? Where they have always been bitching from the sidelines and doing exactly nothing. I sat and watched their convention a few years ago and was amazed just how like the old SDP they were -- people too ineffectual to be in charge of something who are complaining that they are not in charge!

As for Republicans --- Big Government is like the one Ring. While you don't have it's power you believe that it is evil and pledge to destroy it, but when you have it in your possession you start thinking "yeah I can use this for GOOD!" and before you know it you are half naked, living in a cave and eating raw fish (or is that just Tom DeLay???)

... that was a very intelligent post, and I have to agree.

... I became a Libertarian only after leaving the United States and watching the absurdity from 10 thousand miles away.. for several years.

... Dem or Rep is a lose-lose situation these days. Both have us completely chained and bound to forces beyond anyone's control. Excuse me if I seem to be drifing here a bit, and I am no "tree-hugging" environmentalist to be sure, but...

... Saudi Arabia IS the enemy of the United States. That is to say, everybody in Saudi Arabia who isn't a billionaire hates us pretty much. And G. Bush, and Slick Willy before him spent years kissing the Saudis' arses for love of money and personal fortune (Clinton, about a month after his last term went to give a speech in Rihad... for a million and some odd dollar speaking fee. Daddy Bush did likewise).
... Colin Powel has made millions selling Boeing airplanes to the Saudi Royals, to offer another example . . . Condi Rice and that oil frieghter they named for her... I could go on and on....

... All the while Saudi Arabia is like Vesuvius of old - ready to erupt in an Islamic fundamentalist militant explosion... So our fearless leaders have to get all the cash they can, WHILE they can, eh...

... Now for that "tree-hugger" part. Hydrogen battery-powered cars, that run on nothing but water DO exist, and they run quite well. They are not yet perfected and nobody (gov't or major corporations) is putting any serious money into its development. . . why not? Well... there's no big PERSONAL cash payoff.

... Cut US dependency on Saudi oil, and a great many problems vanish. Including the "need" to go fight wars overseas to better secure oil for that day when Saudi Arabia does finally fall apart.

... Did that make any sense? I hope it did. The issue is so complex and I don't pretend to understand all of it, but this Saudi connection is cancer that crosses all party lines in the US.

... Venting finished. Thank you.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 4:00 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Big Government is like the one Ring. While you don't have it's power you believe that it is evil and pledge to destroy it, but when you have it in your possession you start thinking "yeah I can use this for GOOD!" and before you know it you are half naked, living in a cave and eating raw fish (or is that just Tom DeLay???)

Well said. But there are exceptions to the rule. Some Big Problems require a Big Government. For example, fishing stocks depletion can only be resolved through world-wide regulation, which is the Biggest Government of all. Unless you can think of another way to resolve such problems. BTW- thanks for the visual on Tom DeLay. heh heh heh

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 5:20 AM

Quote:

As for Republicans --- Big Government is like the one Ring. While you don't have it's power you believe that it is evil and pledge to destroy it, but when you have it in your possession you start thinking "yeah I can use this for GOOD!" and before you know it you are half naked, living in a cave and eating raw fish (or is that just Tom DeLay???)

I hate to admit that lately there is something to this. I'd like to think that isn't so, but for about half my party it seems to be so at elast re; the Bush crowd.

Quote:

BTW, if you check out these links, you'll find the same people (ACLU, Molly Ivens, etc) complaining about loss of freedom under Clinton as under Bush. So, I don't know where the Libertarians have been but at least the Liberals are consistent.

I'll grant that Molly Ivens is a liberal, but despite Bush claims, the ACLU is a libertarian. They stand up for the right as often as they do for the left.

Quote:

Saudi Arabia IS the enemy of the United States. That is to say, everybody in Saudi Arabia who isn't a billionaire hates us pretty much.

This was an excellent point. I would beg to differ on one part though. Those billionaires are organizing a take over of American media and banking, and they have funded a lot of terrorism. I think they, too, are the enemy of the United States.

Quote:
Condi Rice and that oil frieghter they named for her...

Actually she has two.

I aqree that there are a lot of viable alternatives up at the moment. I'm not sure about the hydrogen because the ones I've seen rely on storing a tank of compressed hydrogen, it's potentially a bomb. We drive and fly around on bombs all the time. I'd like to see a solution which can't be made to blow up.

Quote:

Some Big Problems require a Big Government. For example, fishing stocks depletion can only be resolved through world-wide regulation, which is the Biggest Government of all. Unless you can think of another way to resolve such problems.

I disagree. This can be done by a very small govt. A regulation on fishing caps is simply a law that requires very little enforcement, and could be carried out by the coast guard. Big govt. is not just a matter of how much it constricts civil liberties, it's a matter of how much money it spends, how many people it hires, and how many people's lives are interfered with. Here the only interferences on people's lives would be to large fishing concerns who come close to the limit.

I would add that the majority of these are foreign-owned, and infringing on the rights of foreign concerns to loot your nations natural resources can not be called big govt. If govt. cannot do this, it has no reason to exist.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 5:28 AM

VETERAN

Don't squat with your spurs on.

HaoLeHaoLe

Good vent.

Where could I find out more about those hydrogen powered cars?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 7:25 AM

UNREGISTEREDCOMPANION

I am a libertarian. And I am ignored by friends and family when it comes to politics. I still speak my mind, but not much one person can do except refuse to be quiet.

~~~~~
"Funny and sexy. You have no idea. And you never will."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 7:29 AM

CITIZEN

Where are the Libertarians?
Dating the Librarians

.

Hydrogen powered cars.
We've got some hydrogen buses travelling around London, kicking out that terribly harmful water and all. Your major concern was with the bomb aspect, but I believe that actually at least as safe as normal petrol solutions. Something to do with a honeycomb storage tank.

Fishing stocks.
They aren't your natural resources, strictly speaking, if the fish stocks are in international waters. How does, for instance, the British Navy enforce fishing quotas on Norwegian boats in the North Sea (fished by a number of countries including Britain) without potentially going to war with Norway? Hey we'd win but that's not the point.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by UnregisteredCompanion:
I am a libertarian. And I am ignored by friends and family when it comes to politics. I still speak my mind, but not much one person can do except refuse to be quiet.

yeah... that pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?

I can't help but reflect on the similarities of being a libertarian, and being a Firefly fan. So many of the same kinds of frustrations.

In each case you have something precious to you, something that (it seems) every living person should value, and you're faced with the painful fact that most people just don't care. Most people don't want liberty, they want safety. Most people don't want challenging storytelling, they want predictable fluff.

You can scream from the rooftops until you're hoarse, but in the end they still won't care. Your show will be canceled and they'll vote in another republicrat to piss away what freedom we have left.

Now I'm depressed...

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

SargeX- sorry to bring up such a depressing topic. I was wondering where the usual Bush apologists are. They're awfully quiet these days.

Come out, come out wherever you are!

BTW- I'm finding I have more in common with real Libertarians (as opposed to fascists in drag) than I thought. DT, SargeX- Do you suppose there could ever be some sort of uniting on common issues between lefties and Libertarians and conservatives?

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 9:00 AM

Find a few like minded people and stand for office, any office, local school board, local council anything. If you have a better way then you can demonstrate that by action. No you won't get a President anytime soon but it's better than whinging.

Evil exists because good people do nothing. If you really believe that things are bad then try to change them, don't just talk about changing them and then complain when nothing happens.

A good target would be these redistricting events that make more and more congressional seats "safe" for one party or another. No seat should ever be "safe" if someone wants to remain our representative he should have to work his ass off to keep his job, just like the rest of us do. Governments should fear their people, not the other way around.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 9:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Find a few like minded people and stand for office, any office, local school board, local council anything. If you have a better way then you can demonstrate that by action. No you won't get a President anytime soon but it's better than whinging.

Evil exists because good people do nothing. If you really believe that things are bad then try to change them, don't just talk about changing them and then complain when nothing happens.

A good target would be these redistricting events that make more and more congressional seats "safe" for one party or another. No seat should ever be "safe" if someone wants to remain our representative he should have to work his ass off to keep his job, just like the rest of us do. Governments should fear their people, not the other way around.

I've actually been quite aways down that road. Even ran for local office. It resulted in mostly frustration, as I mentioned earlier.

The alternative I recommend is to live free despite the government. Its much easier than most imagine and I think it may have a more positive effect than the traditional political approach. Our rulers maintain power through a very fragile thread - much more tenous than most imagine.

I'm reminded of a cartoon by B.Kliban. It shows a king speaking to his people from a balcony. The king says, "I'm the king and you have to do what I command or else I can't be king anymore!". That's pretty much all there is to it. They only have power because we do what they tell us. "Just say no."

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 10:12 AM

UNREGISTEREDCOMPANION

"Do you suppose there could ever be some sort of uniting on common issues between lefties and Libertarians and conservatives?"

Not really. Because ideas come from pholosophies. The philosophies of these 3 groups are incompatible.

~~~~~
"Funny and sexy. You have no idea. And you never will."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 10:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
DT, SargeX- Do you suppose there could ever be some sort of uniting on common issues between lefties and Libertarians and conservatives?

This was one of my biggest sources of frustration with the Libertarian party itself. They were pretty lax in attempts to attract traditional liberals.

This was disappointing because I always felt liberals, in general, had a better understanding basic libertarian principles than the conservative republicans - even though the conservative republicans were more likely to take an interest in Libertarian politics.

It seemed a lot of conservatives were happy to call themselves libertarians when the issues were cutting taxes or pulling back on the welfare state, but when it came to really respecting the rights of people to live as they wished, were less enthusiastic. (gay marriage and drug legalization, for example)

On the other hand, Liberals, even though they seemed to have a greater respect for real individual liberty, couldn't let go of their pet 'big government' projects and saw Libertarians as a direct threat. From my way of thinking, it was an easier task to show liberals how their big gov solutions were counterproductive than to convince self-righteous conservatives that it was ok if their neighbors did drugs.

Ultimately though, it was just an uphill battle to get people to consider ideas that weren't already part of the mainstream. Most people get scared when they get the feeling they are thinking for themselves and that was the hardest barrier to overcome.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 12:21 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Just a short personal story.

As one of the 'get involved or quit b*tchin' folk', I ran for union steward 5 years ago. Been dealing with grievances, negotiations, appeals etc ever since. Not only do I go to the meetings, I've put in hundreds of hours of my own personal time to research the things that need to be researched. And some people always, but always criticize afterward.

I'm not in it for the power. And I'm not in it for personal gain, for recognition, gratitude, or even thanks.

As soon as somebody else will step forward to do the job, I'm out of here. But nobody steps forward.

So, STEP FORWARD. REPEATEDLY if needed. Put yourself in the works and move as much as you can.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 4:16 PM

Quote:

"Do you suppose there could ever be some sort of uniting on common issues between lefties and Libertarians and conservatives?"

Not really. Because ideas come from pholosophies. The philosophies of these 3 groups are incompatible.

I disagree.

I think the left-libertarian and the right-libertarian sets could get together and make a plan to fight the pro-govt. control set from both sides. It would take planning, and agreeing to disagree on a lot of points until we got rid of the neo-con, neo-liberal set.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 5:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:

"Do you suppose there could ever be some sort of uniting on common issues between lefties and Libertarians and conservatives?"

Not really. Because ideas come from pholosophies. The philosophies of these 3 groups are incompatible.

I disagree.

I think the left-libertarian and the right-libertarian sets could get together and make a plan to fight the pro-govt. control set from both sides. It would take planning, and agreeing to disagree on a lot of points until we got rid of the neo-con, neo-liberal set.

I'd sure like to think you're right. There may be more potential than ever for that now that Bush has betrayed so many of the basic principles of the 'Reagan republicans'. Not to mention liberals are quite a bit more sympathetic to the small government ideal, now that they're not driving.

But the question remains, do people really want freedom? I'm not convinced they do. At least not in large enough numbers to matter.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2005 1:31 AM

HAOLEHAOLE

... Just a couple of links on that Hydrogen Battery Car topic:

http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/06/10/HydrogenElectricCar/

http://www.hasslberger.com/tecno/hydrogen.html

This second link has engine designs for the [Do it yourself crowd.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2005 4:02 AM

Sgt. X.

Quote:

I'd sure like to think you're right. There may be more potential than ever for that now that Bush has betrayed so many of the basic principles of the 'Reagan republicans'.

First, a couple points,
I think of myself as an 'Eisenhower' Republican. I think a lot of people do, still others look back to Teddy Roosevelt. I just have a couple problems with Reagan, more now than I did then, because of the influence that both neocons and the global socialists, and also the christian extremists had over Reagan who they handpicked to defeat Bush Sr. in '80, much the way GWB was picked by them to defeat McCain in '00. That said, Reagan would be be Mother Theresa compared to W. But I think generally most of the Republican presidents have been pretty consistant up until Reagan, and that Bush Sr. fit much more into that mold than either Reagan or W. At this point I'd like to see the whole neocon set gone from the party. They've been yacking 'do it our way' for a long time, and now we've done it their way and it sucked, and I'd like to go back to the old way.

Quote:

Not to mention liberals are quite a bit more sympathetic to the small government ideal, now that they're not driving.

I actually like to think that they've seen the light, now they've seen exactly how scary big govt. can be. I hope so. It's possible that they will revert to form when they win in '08 which if Bush continues at the rate he's going has to be a dead certainty. I was stunned and amazed they didn't win in '04.

Quote:

But the question remains, do people really want freedom? I'm not convinced they do. At least not in large enough numbers to matter.

You don't need a group that large. When you add up all the revelationists, various christian sects that worship the second coming, there are 24 million of them. 14 million are registered voters. 10 million of those voted for GWB in the 2000 GOP primary. Just about no one else did.

By contrast the Democratic presidential primary is even smaller. About 70% the size. So 10 million was 50% of the 20 million votes cast, so our of 14 million democratic votes you'd only need about 7 million. Possibly a little more because I think that the team evil model democrat is a little strong in it's hold over the party than team evil model republican, not a subjective comment, just a reflection of vote totals. 10 million or so voted for Kerry.

So 10 million, that's what it takes to get yourself a president. After you win the primary, the rest of your party will fall in line. If you're not too outlandish. Oh, hell, look at Bush, or even Kerry, okay, even if you are completely absurd, the rest of your party will fall in line.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2005 12:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

But the question remains, do people really want freedom? I'm not convinced they do. At least not in large enough numbers to matter.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

I'm not sure they do. There is a quote attributed to Napoleon that says that only the educated classes worry about liberty, the people worry about bread.

This is my take on it.

The poor don't vote in the numbers they should, maybe out of ignorance maybe because the system makes it hard for them to vote. In any case voter turnout in poor districts is low and it tends to be where more vote irregularities take place.

The rich do vote but they are small in number so their influence is small.

Therefore most voters are middleclass. This has a number of consequences because what the middle class want more than anything is stability. They are also the ones most concerned with security and the rule of law --- the poor have little to loose, the rich don't realy on the cops for security so things like a strong police force are middle class obscessions. The middle class are also pretty conservative, that need for stability again, when people say that America is a conservative country they often miss out the fact that America has the world's largest and most affluent middle class.

So what does this mean in electoral terms? First it means for an American political party to get elected it has to appeal to the middle class, even if it claims it's ideological allegence is elsewhere. Un the UK when I was growing up the middle class was comparatively small compared to a well organised working class. That was what made the election of a Labour government based on Socialist principles possible. Mrs Thatcher changed all that, she actively grew the middle class and the number of people owning property until the only way that Labour could be elected was to move it to the right. We are now in the possition like the US of having essentially two center-right parties chasing the same middle class voters one of which claims to be left wing and the other claiming to be pro business.

The good news is that while a middle class is strong and secure a country doesn't tend to slip into obvious tyrany. Hitler was elected because the economic woes of Germany put a lot of workers and middle class voters on the dole. If that hadn't happened it would be hard to see how the Nazi's could have triumphed. Contrary to the red scare of the 1950's the US has never been at risk of an internal revolution. No middle class voter is going to vote soviet and as long as the poor can afford to eat there is little risk of a worker's revolution.

The bad news is that all the majority of the middle class want is security. Give them that and they don't care too much about liberty. That I think is the problem with the Libertarian message; people don't dislike big governmant on principle they just get pissy about paying for it. If the middle class can get the benefit of big government without the bill they'd buy into it in a heartbeat because what big governmant DOES is try to look after every tiny need a citizen has. You can't get more "secure" than that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 22, 2005 7:20 PM

Fletch,

I may be beating a dead horse, but here goes. Polls continually show that the % of people concerned about stability is small. 70%-80% of people would prefer peace and are really not that concerned about whether or not the Saddam Husseins stay in power. The estimated total cost I read somewhere, associated with our war in Iraq to date was just of $1 trillion. I'm sure that this is at least in the ball park of correct. I also read that a conflict with Iran is likely to cost three times as much, and would probably result in a million casualties, and like 10,000 plus American lives lost. Is it worth all this to the American people to see that Ahmadinejad and the theocrats lose power in Iran? I don't want to hear it, that was a rhetorical question. The thing is I will give you an iron clad guarantee that an overwhelming majority of Americans think not. Yet last election we saw two ultra-hawkish candidates square off in one big wargasm.

So why? It has nothing to do with what the people believe. The people were made to believe what the machine wanted them to believe. The machine has votes. Kerry and Bush each got about 10 million votes. Then, in the general election, their parties both got 50 million or so more votes.

In the general eleciton, most of our voters are voting for the jackass or the elephant, pretty much regardless of who is on the ticket. The only actual election is the primary. Each side has about 100 million registered voters. Both of us got swamped by someone with the unstoppable majority of 10%. I hope everyone feels as disorganized as I do right now.

In general, I think the degree of pro-peace feeling is fairly equal on both sides. The pro-prosperity feeling probably is too. Any campaign as organized as Bush and Kerry were with almost any sensible agenda ought to be able to annihilate them. Hell, any random fringe minority could probably do it, with enough organization.
There are almost as many Joss fans as there are fundementalist christian primary voters. If we made an alliance with the charmed viewers or the trekkies, we wouldn't need any help. Or course, it also takes unity of purpose.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 23, 2005 6:17 AM

DT: you are mistaking security for stability. I said stability and I meant it. Let's look at that a moment. Iraq has had a slow burn with the public, Bush is only now feeling the consequences of an action he took over 2 years ago because no matter how many billions are spent overseas or how many young Americans die that has had little impact on folks at home. The stability of all those little suburban middleclass lives have not been threatened.

Now let's look at the last time his popularity was in the toilet, hurricane Katrina. That has a more immediate impact because looking after Americans caught in a domestic disaster is seen rightly or wrongly as a Federal (Big) government job and he's the boss of that. When people see all the bad things happening in New Orleans they see themselves in that situation and the government their have detailed the job of taking care of that asleep at the wheel. THEN gas prices went up everywhere else and that SUV run to drop lil Jimmy at school just became more expensive for the average soccer mom.

If there was a draft and suburban middle class kids were the majority of the casualties in Iraq we'd see a lot more reaction. If the costs of the war were being added to direct taxation and not being financed by borrowing we'd see a reaction but the truth is that Iraq doesnt touch most middle class lives. That is why it hasn't featured as a big issue.

As to polls on security. It doesn't come up because it generally isn't an issue. Had you asked the same question in DC during the beltway sniper incident of in NYC just after 9/11 you would have had a different answer. Security is only an issue if people feel directly threatened, right now they dont.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 23, 2005 9:47 AM

HIGHWIREDSITH

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 24, 2005 4:51 AM

Fletch,

I can't seem to find the post this was a response to, so I'll just ramble.

The draft logic is flawed if you mean to carry it to a pro-draft level as many liberals have done to me. The main reason the draft would make things worse is that it would enable a monster army and a giant war. This is why it would affect back home, not just because it was a draft. But I don't think the draft is ever going to feature big as a GOP platform point because it conflicts with Republican values which even Bush can't totally buck without getting kicked out of the party. The fact that they haven't done it already astounds me. I think this country has become to comfortable with the idea that who ever has the ring deserves the ring even if it happens to be Vice President Gollum.

To some extent I agree, security is an issue for those threatened. If this was re: inside of Iraq, I think that the external threats to Iraq are going to be pretty severe if we leave without decent preparation, plus the inside threats, heck, it's a mess. But maybe foreign powers will just manipulate the democracy rather than kill a bunch of people. I seriously have been expecting all along for a pull out on Aug. 30th of '06 because that's what the bible says.

You know, one man, he overcomes the will of the masses because he's guided by the will of God, and he comes to power in the most powerful nation on the millenium aka 2000, then he and his 24 yesmen push an invasion of th evalley of tigris and eurphrates, ie Iraq, and they rain down fire and brimstone with silver eagles from the heavens, iow, they bomb it into the stone age, and then the forces of the ruler being a dozen units of a dozen thousand occupy the land for 1260 days, ie. 144,000 US troops or so occupy Iraq until Aug. 30th of 2006. Then it's time for bible-mandated withdrawl.

Silly people, reading the constitution, declarations of war, Pah! This adminisration gets its legislative ideas from a higher power.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 24, 2005 7:01 AM

JAYTEE

I think several postings here have touched on a major truth but I didn't see any that mentioned an effective strategy. The truth is that neither the Republican party or the Democrat party really represent the majority in this country anymore. The Repuplican far right with Bush has hijacked the party and racked up massive deficits when the Repuplican party used to stand for smaller government and fiscal responsibility. The Democrats have gone overboard with pushing new entitlement programs while not doing anything to fix the rampant fraud in the ones that we really need to keep in order to promote opportunity and the chance of prosperity for ALL Americans like Social Security, Medicaid and the Student Loan Program.
It's time for a new party that really represents the concerns of the "silent" majority in this country and Libertarians aren't going to appeal to most of us and they can't get their message straight either. We need to form a new party that has as it's basic priorities first and
foremost education, fiscal responsibilty (balanced budget amendment) and strict protection of civil liberties. We should call it the Eagle Party since Eagles make a much cooler symbol than either an ass or an elephant. Then come election time we just vote out all the incumbents, Democrat or Republican. NO ONE GETS REELECTED. Voter enforced term limits can work. Break the back of the old boy network and then you'll see some true change for the better.

Jaytee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 24, 2005 7:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JayTee:
It's time for a new party that really represents the concerns of the "silent" majority in this country and Libertarians aren't going to appeal to most of us and they can't get their message straight either.

I agree that it isn't going to appeal to most of you, but the Libertarian message couldn't be much clearer. I honestly can't think of a political party that has anything like the clear, concise philosophy the Libertarians espouse. You might not like it, but it't plenty straight.

Quote:
NO ONE GETS REELECTED. Voter enforced term limits can work. Break the back of the old boy network and then you'll see some true change for the better.

Term limits might work for bit, but if you have the political will to pass term limits, why not just vote the bums out of office? Or change the voting systems that give incumbants such an advantage in the first place?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 24, 2005 9:04 AM

JAYTEE

What I said was that voters had to vote the incumbents out thereby creating a "term limit" since there is no way Congress will vote for term limits on their own. It's not in their best interests and that seems to be all that concerns them in the first place.

Jaytee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 24, 2005 10:05 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'm going to hijack my own thread and come back to the original topic:

Quote:
NEW YORK (AP) -- The National Security Agency has conducted much broader surveillance of e-mails and phone calls -- without court orders -- than the Bush administration has acknowledged, The New York Times reported. The NSA, with help from American telecommunications companies, obtained access to streams of domestic and international communications, said the Times, citing unidentified current and former government officials.

Since the Times disclosed the domestic spying program last week, President Bush has stressed that his executive order allowing the eavesdropping was limited to people with known links to al Qaeda. {Yeah. Right. This Prez is a pathological liar. AJ? Geezer? Hero? Finn? Any defense of this would surely be appreciated. SignyM} But the Times said that NSA technicians have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might lead to terrorists. The volume of information harvested from telecommunications data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged.

www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/24/domestic.spying.ap/index.html Naturally DoJ head Gonzales thinks this is all legal. Now, one wonders- does one not?- why Bush was SOOO anxious to get Harriet Miers or another Klansman into the Supreme Court so quickly! Then they could rubber-stamp his coup.

I hope the Senate takes an indefinitely long, hard look at Alito, who probably doesn't think that Americans have a right to privacy. Abortion is just a red herring.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 24, 2005 10:15 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I love Big Brother.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 24, 2005 11:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JayTee:
What I said was that voters had to vote the incumbents out thereby creating a "term limit" since there is no way Congress will vote for term limits on their own. It's not in their best interests and that seems to be all that concerns them in the first place.

Ahh.. I misread. In that case I couldn't agree more. Have you looked at Approval Voting? It's something that, I think, could be adopted at a grassroots level and could really change the way elections are approached by candidates.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 24, 2005 7:14 PM

Merry Christmas

I just want to take a stand to oppose term limits. Strongly oppose them. Vehemently oppose them.

Okay, here are my points

1. Experience is important, freshman lawmakers are very close to useless and easily swindled into bad policy by suave long term washington lobbyists.

2. A party can and does get corrupted. If there were term limits then the party constituency would always reflect the party leadership, which would be bad, and not just a little bad but appallingly nazi bad.

3. Lifelong lawmakers can come in from any period in history, and become a sort of freezeframe of their parties position at that point. McCain is a Nixon Republican, because that's when he came in. This sort of thing forces a party to be consistant to its own values throughout history.

If I were to look at my party and its elected officials, there are a few new ones I like who have promise, but I have an overwhelming tendency to prefer the ones who have been there a while. I think there's a fair chance if we have better GOP leadership in the future, well it would be hard to fathom worse, then some people like George Allen and Norm Coleman who went off half cocked might make very good long term GOP members. If they don't, we can vote them out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 24, 2005 7:28 PM

JT,

You're sounding like the Reform Party USA.

I don't think this is a workable solution. A third party would have the opposition of both major parties, and during its early life would tend to force the group it hates more to win perpetually.

Here's what I think may be a better idea:

We should take over the two parties. At the moment 30-40 mil people vote for a candidate in a primary every 4 years, totalling both sides. That's just over 10% of the population, and under 20% of registered voters. Everyone else votes for a party in a general election. This means the parties come with 40 million free votes apiece, or 80 million total votes for free, if you can organize the others. It's very doable. It's not easy, but it's far from impossible.

On either side it would take 10 million votes to win.

By contrast, it would take a 3rd party candidate at least 40 million to win, assuming an excellent 3-way split.

So by going the third party way, even if you discount the whole legal battle of having both major parties against you, you've still automatically made your task 4 times harder.

Since I think it's very important that absolutely no one who opposes Bush and Co. go and help them stay in power, I have to list off the democrats who will be most likely to continue the Bush policies, again, of course, I'm referring tot he democrat half of team evil:

Ben Nelson, aka the Benator
Diane Feinstein aka Difi
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Joe Lieberman aka Joementum
John Forbes Kerry
Wesley Clarke

Don't go to work for these people. If you're a democrat, a progressive and care about your party and are not happy with Bush policies, pick someone from outside and don't just vote, work for them in the primary campaign. But only if they work to get definite members rather than through pure advertising, which never works.

If I were a democrat, my pick would be Russ Feingold if he will run, but whoever it is, make sure that you know they are who they say they are and who you're sure has at least a snowflakes chance in hell, ie. they haven't already done something chappaquiddickish.

My current choice for GOP runner to volunteer for will probably be Chuck Hagel. I like McCain okay, but if both run I'll probably still work for Hagel, even if I think he'll lose to McCain to at least earn VP.

And organize, organize, organize.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, December 24, 2005 8:07 PM

Third party isn't going to work. I don't know about the US but in the UK new parties only tend to make breakthroughs when old parties are either completely discredited or if they split over policy. I don't know that we are in a position where either of those two events is likely. Even if you accept the Dreamtrove idea that Bush et al are a rebel gang currently in charge of the Republicans it would be hard for traditionalist Republicans to shake them off. Why? because such events do not happen in isolation, the parties that exist today are a reflection of the political, economic and social standards of our time while those ideas persist we will have more of the same.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 25, 2005 6:17 PM

DUTCH508

you didn't look very hard.

'Warrantless' searches not unprecedented
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 22, 2005

Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.
"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.
More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."
Such warrantless searches have been at the center of a political fight in Washington after the New York Times reported Friday that the Bush administration had a program to intercept communications between al Qaeda suspects and persons in this country, a story whose publication coincided with the congressional debate over reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act.
In a 2002 opinion about the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA Patriot Act, the court wrote: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
Indeed, previous administrations have used that same authority.
One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.
In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.
Previous administrations also asserted the authority of the president to conduct searches in the interest of national security.
In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government.
That same year, Congress approved and Mr. Carter signed FISA, which created the secret court and required federal agents to get approval to conduct electronic surveillance in most foreign intelligence cases.

and:

'Warrantless' searches not unprecedented
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
December 22, 2005

A Washington Post report at the time said the new FISA law permits "the government (primarily NSA with the occasional help of an FBI 'black bag job' or break-in) to continue electronic spying without a court order if it is directed solely at the premises or communications of 'official' powers, such as governments, factions or entities openly known to be directed and controlled by foreign governments."
The year after FISA became law, a columnist in The Washington Post described what could still happen to any person or group determined to be "an agent of a foreign power."
"Once the attorney general has made that finding about someone, then the FBI can spy on them or burglarize their offices," wrote William Greider in a May 1979 column.
The Bush administration and Republicans on Capitol Hill say terrorist cells in this country are precisely what those FISA loopholes were intended for, even if they don't represent a traditional enemy state.
"Following the 9/11 attacks, it was obvious that al Qaeda utilized high-tech communication systems and modified its communication methods to avoid surveillance," Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, said.
Mr. Cornyn and other Republicans have agreed with Democrats that hearings are necessary to learn more about Mr. Bush's domestic spy policy. There remains disagreement, however, over whether those hearings should be open to the public.
One area certain to be discussed in any hearings would be the use of warrantless searches in previous administrations.
In an interview yesterday, Miss Gorelick acknowledged her testimony before Congress but said it pertained to presidential authority prior to 1994, when Congress expanded FISA laws. Left unanswered, she said, is whether that congressional action trumped the president's "inherent authority."
"The Clinton administration did not take a position on that," she said

However, one finds this:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release February 9, 1995

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949

- - - - - - -
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801,
et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for
the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.

Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney
General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain
orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign
intelligence information.

Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or
defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section
303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical
searches:

(a) Secretary of State;

(b) Secretary of Defense;

© Director of Central Intelligence;

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;

(e) Deputy Secretary of State;

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications,
unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 9, 1995.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Why is it a heinous crime when Bush taps thousands of international calls and emails after 9/11 happened in order to try to prevent another one but it's completely ignored that Clinton tapped millions of international AND DOMESTIC calls and emails after the first trade center bombing?
Not a big supporter of Clinton here- I know he did some skanky stuff- but this is one thing I never heard of. First of all, it would be impossible to tap "millions" of calls because you would need "millions" of listeners, and at least thousands of translators. Secondly, I tried looking this up, and while I found a lot of hue and cry about what Clinton PROPOSED to do
Quote:
For two decades, lingering popular wariness forestalled any expansion of wiretapping powers. But after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, President Clinton, warning of international terrorism, proposed measures similar to those George Bush seeks today. Civil libertarians in Congress refused to pass them, but Clinton redoubled his efforts after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and again after the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing. Yet Congress held firm, giving Clinton none of the new wiretapping powers he sought. What the bombings of 1993, 1995, and 1996 failed to achieve, the atrocities of 2001 may bring to fruition.
http://hnn.us/articles/366.html
www.cqpress.com/context/articles/cqr19950721.html and some of what he HAD done
Quote:
Granting new powers to the FISA court was accomplished quietly and treated as a non-event in the national media. The lack of reporting was somehow fitting, though, following as it did the silent debate last year when Congress rubberstamped the annual Intelligence Authorization Act
www.monitor.net/monitor/10-30-95/fisa.html I haven't found any- and mean zip, nada, nic- about this alleged massive wiretapping program. So, do you have a link to info about this?

BTW, if you check out these links, you'll find the same people (ACLU, Molly Ivens, etc) complaining about loss of freedom under Clinton as under Bush. So, I don't know where the Libertarians have been but at least the Liberals are consistent.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

dutch
Old, cranky and set in my ways.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 25, 2005 6:27 PM

CHRISISALL

It's all good as long as 007 does the right thing.

Chrisisa double-D'oh

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 25, 2005 6:27 PM

TOMSIMPSONAZ

I vote libertarian, when taxes are 2% of the family budget instead of 50%, I'll consider the other 2 parties again.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 25, 2005 6:31 PM

Fletch,

Again we're closer than usual to agreement. How unlikely. I want to clarify something.

The situation in the GOP right now is very peculiar. The Bush/neocon set has one (1) voter group which votes for them at the polls. This is the christian right. The thing to do which is counter intuitive, is to outbid them for the christian right. A new republican agenda would have to do that. But there's more peculiar about this voting block. They are really isolationists. They're so isolationist that they would like to set up their own rules and have no interference even from the state and local govts. There is undoubtedly a compromise which can be reached where we stop affecting their enclaves, and they stop effecting our federal govt. In essence, they would become like indian reservations.

But then it would have to revert to the values the rest of us hold, fiscal discipline, limited govt. etc. The thing is that Bush is to some extent an abberration. Neocons are not really republican at all, they're hald of the former social democrats, the other half are still democrats. But close examination of both our primaries and of the senate reveals that GOP resistance to Bush is far greater than Democratic resistance to Clinton. As I recall only Russ Feingold consistantly opposed the Clinton Admin.

But I'm not saying it's going to be easy. I will guarantee you it is easier than throwing the hawks out of the democratic party. In the primaries, the hawks take 70%-90% consistantly of the dem ticker, and only 50% of the republican, and that is just the christian right, which is in its heart much more of an isolationist, they don't vote for neocon hawks for the war, they do it for the pro-religion. I think it's doable to kick the hawks out of the GOP more or less permanently. I think it's much more difficult to do so in the Democratic party, but I fully support anyone who wants to try.

Finally, I think these things DO happen in isolation. Bush and co have very few ties to other republicans, and tensions are very high. The fuzzier part is that there are SOME republicans who WILL work with Bush but AREN'T particularly neocon themselves, or wouldn't be if Bush disappeared. John McCain, Colin Powell, Even Condi Rice would revert to being a normal Republican if the mainstay neocons were axed. Where I think the neocons are entrenched is not in the GOP proper, but in the auxilliary complex, like the media talk shows and whatnot. Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, etc. are going to follow the neocons off the end of the Earth. By contrast, I DO think that Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and the like would follow the GOP back into the mainstream if it recovered.

Actually.

Let me take a moment to lay all the cards on the table.

We have three options. We must take one of those three options, because the option of total defeatest apathy is not an option.

Option 1. We form a third party and break in.

Option 2. We resurrect the democratic party.

Option 3. We resurrect the republican party.

Considering option 1, I think most of us have discarded this, it take 4 times as much success to succeed, minimum, on an absolute scale.

Option 2, I say "How?" I'm all for the idea of Russ Feingold for president, but getting the Democratic party to nominate him is like getting the GOP to nominate Lincoln Chafee. It's totally comparable, because neither one can be counted for to vote with their own party more than half the time. Realistically, the democratic voters are far more likely to vote for a hawk in the primary and in the general election because this is how it was in '04, '00, '96, '92 and so on back to 1824 with very few exceptions. It's a fairly quixotic bid.

Option 3, has the strong advantage that there's already a large disaffected population within the party willing to move towards change, and a long standing history of not voting for hawks. Republicans historically not only have many times the number of peaceful presidents on their resume, but also, even in the recent election primaries, while the hawks have held both parties, the republicans are far more likely to vote for peaceful candidate in primaries than their democratic equivalents.

If someone has another plan, I'm willing to hear it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, December 25, 2005 6:47 PM

It's painful for me to swallow, but you do make a lot of sense. The trouble is, I have the hardest time trusting anyone who can succeed through a major party primary process. I haven't been there, so I can't say you're wrong, but my impression is that it takes so many compromises and entangling alliances that no one can come to power without baggage that's sure to flatten any kind of reformist ideology.

I'm reminded of Reagan. For all his cashing in on distrust of big government, he did very little to dismantle it. Maybe his intentions were good, but nothing budged.

I'll think about this more. Your argument gives me some slim hope. It's been my position for sometime that the only effective opposition to Bush's policies will be from within the republican party. Hmmmm

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2005 6:00 AM

Sgt X.

Politics is the art of compromise.

That said, it's a matter of who you choose to compromise with that matters.

Reagan was a stooge, a lackey. He was hand picked by the neocons as their first pet election project, and then then fed to the christian right as someone who would put God back in the whitehouse. Reagan himself did a lot of compromising to become that.

That gave him the numbers to win, then he walked in an took the nomination flat out, and there was a huge fight. The GOP didn't like an outsider winning, esp. one who was backed by two groups they didn't traditionally represent, one trosky-socialist, and the other religious-fanatic.

So a huge fight ensued, and the result was a compromise. This compromise worked out at the '80 GOP convention would make George H. W. Bush, former CIA chief, vice president (he would not have been Reagan or his supporter's pick by any means) and that Reagan once in office would appoint a number of traditional republicans into govt. Reagan also appointed a good number of neocons. It's was kind of a mix.

If Reagan hadn't made the first compromise in order to get the votes, he could have been a lot better. If he hadn't made the second compromise with the party, he would have been a lot worse. The result was acceptable, but not perfect.

A new group would have to make similar compromises. First, they would need to assemble into a well distribute group of 10 million or so. Once they did this, advertising would be more or less unnecessary until the general election. They would walk in an take the title by sheer numbers. This group would already have compromised on a platform. This platform would be not carved in stone by more a list of sort of things we promise to try to achieve, and if we fail, well then you probably won't vote for us in the future, so we better try.

The once having won the title, another compromise would have to be worked out so that the party would consent to give you its full backing. Certain candidates like McGovern in '72 seem to have run without a full party backing, meaning the backers of the party weren't willing to throw in the necessary support, and so the campaign kind of flopped. There are one or more trade offs that would have to be made here, but that's a hell of a lot better than just letting evil reign. But most importantly, I have an idea to offset too much loss from this final compromise, you seek out the agreement you need ahead of time. You look for what you would need to have and who you would need to work with in order to get that final support. So you say okay, well my platform helps stem cell companies and not oil companies, so it needs something else, what can I do for major manufacturing sector or information tech. companies. etc. And you collect a group of people already in the base, without catering to the ones you don't want to cater to. Then you do the same with the old guard of the party. There are a lot of reasonable men there who would welcome the chance to work with just about anything non-neocon just as long as it was remotely more traditional. If you did all this footwork in advance, when you got into the party convention and big oil and neocons objected, you could more or less shout them down.

I do think the primary is their weakest link. It will take a smaller opposition to defeat them there then in either the general election or a power struggle in some major multinational body like the UN or God knows what that they plan to invent.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 26, 2005 7:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Dutch- It sounds as if you support warrantless searches. Is that your intention?

Presidents have long claimed the authority to order warrantless searches for intelligence purposes as long as national security is at stake. That includes Nixon and Reagan (Executive Order 12333) as well as Clinton (Executive Order 12949). The distinction is that crime-fighting requires a warrant and probable cause while intelligence-gathering does not. However, after the abuse of warrantless searches by Nixon (against anti-war groups who were exercising their First Ammendment rights and who did not pose a security threat to the USA) Congress placed the authority w/in FISA. BTW- technically, the surveillance authorization from FISA is not called a "warrant" but a "surveillance order", so searches and wiretaps conducted under FISA are indeed "warrantless". However, they are conducted under Judicial review.

What you quoted was many opinions from advocates of warrantless surveillance. These opinions have not (or probably will not) w/stand Judicial or Congressional scrutiny. The reason is that- knowing that obtaining a FISA surveillance order may take up to 72 hours- there is a loophole that offers the ability to obtain a surveillance order after the fact. Thus, there is no possible reason to evade judicial oversight for warrantless searches.

www.slate.com/id/2070287 www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

And my point remains- where are the Libertarians? The ACLU and leftist organizations have been dogging this issue whether it involved Nixon, Reagan, Clinton or Bush. (Look at the bylines of the varius articles.) Nobody- certainly not me- is claiming Clinton was a great President.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2005 9:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Dreamtrove- I think you've identified the primary as the "weak link" and the point at which to aim. However, the Republican Party has been so relentlessly on -message (of the neocon sort) that that I find it hard to believe that there really are enough disaffected Republican politicians OR voters to turn the party around. If you break out the Bush-approval poll numbers by self-identified Republicans, Independents and Democrats, Bush still maintains a very large approval within the Republican party, and the inverse among Democrats and Independents. You'd be plowing some pretty stony ground.

In addition, the Democratic Party is more openly suffering a split, with Hillary/ Biden/ Feinstein on one side and Dean/Feingold/Edwards on the other. I think that split could be more effectively exploited.

---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 27, 2005 4:35 PM

CITIZEN

If I may dig up a quote from WAAAAAAY back (sorry haven't been to this thread in a while)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Do you suppose there could ever be some sort of uniting on common issues between lefties and Libertarians and conservatives?

There should be. Libertarians were Conservatives that basically split off and adopted some 'leftist' Liberal ideals (such as small government).

Ergo for the two largely opposing views of Liberals and Conservatives Libertarians are the mixing point... Like one of those colour graphs.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 3:19 PM