Repubs "Pledge to America"

[SavageEagle]

But not nearly angry enough. I read the "pledge" earlier today. The GOP doesn't have its ears on, it's just trying to weasel back into power based on the current anger of the people.

If every bit of the pledge were passed and signed by Obama, it might be a decent start, but we're about out of time for *****footing around the major problems that face the economy and government.

Reading this now. Still smells like bull .

 

[photoshooter]

Here's the actual irony:

the LP has been around since the early 1970s

But, anytime they start to make traction, the GOP/Dems establishment pushes out a line of "Vote for us... if you vote LP, you're just throwing away a vote, and letting the bad guys win!"

Problem is, the GOP and the Progressive Dems are both just big government elitists (see the senate races in Alaska and Delaware for prime examples) - who are loathe to give up power. The only major difference between the two sides are the speed at which we're heading to hades. (and a couple social issues - which demographic you hate dictates which of the two parties you should join).

The LP has a tough time getting traction because the big $$ donors only want to fund those in power. Those in power don't want to lose their easy $$ ride, so they shut out anyone taking power away from ... eg, those who seek to unseat them through another party.

What's the LP ever won?

Well, did you know that the Libertarian elected official who represents the MOST constituents in the nation is right here in Indiana? - Ed Coleman on the Indianapolis City/County Council got elected as GOP - got fed up, switched parties to the LP, and got re-elected to an At Large seat. The last time I checked, that means he represents every person in Marion County.

Little successes like that are hardly ever brought up in the media. And, in this election year, there are some good LP folks running in county and city races all across the nation. There might even be a few in your neck of the woods. Some have a good chance of winning. These are the candidates that will be making a difference close to home. These will be the state-race candidates of tomorrow.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Umm... Mmk... Who are the Libertarians running again? And what is the LPUS? Isn't that a desease? Weekly newsletter... You mean spam? Maybe it's in my spam folder. I'll go check when I 'm done typing. Do you really call it a party with only two people? I think discussion or debate club is more appropriate.

And is that your official marketing message - Libertarians. The best ideas you'd find if you'd even do a modicum of looking.

Here's mine. Libertarians. Crying out in the wilderness, unheard over the gentle hushed breeze whispering through the leaves. They both fit.

If you want people to know about you, maybe actually telling someone rather than acting like a freakin snobby elitist libtard would be in order.

While I agree with some of what you're saying, I don't think you're being quite fair to all Libertarian candidates. Rebecca Sink Burris has been on this forum with her message, so at least some of them are trying to get their message out. I expect the rest of us just aren't listening very hard.

People complain about the current crop of Republicans and how "they have no plan", but the fact is, they have lots of ideas, most of which we never get to hear because the MSM doesn't broadcast them. In fact, that is their major failing as a party (besides being almost as addicted to spending as Democrats). IIRC the 1994 "Contract with America" promised to bring the bills up for vote; it didn't promise to get them passed, and couldn't because the Republicans neither controlled the Senate nor the White House at the time.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Sometimes I get the feeling that Republicans just aren't paying attention, as with this, the most unintentionally hilarious part of the whole Pledge:

Not saying it's not a slick move, asking for your job back by promising to fix the problem you created. I just wonder how many Republicans have mentally assigned all "bailout" programs to Obama in their heads and are now banging the drum to get rid of that "dumbocrap TARP thing".

ETA: What's even better, TARP is already scheduled to end October 3rd, a month before the election. I'm sure that'll go down as "another promise kept".

I don't think you're being quite fair, either. The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac problems started with the Democrats in 1993 and Democrats resisted any efforts to rein in the relaxed mortgage lending issue during Bush's Administration. TARP was proposed and pushed by Bush's Democrat Treasury Secretary (another miscue in a policy of "a new tone in Washington").

 

[chraland51]

IMO the 1994 Contract with America turned out to be a joke. Sure, they brought all that they promised to a discussion on the floors of Congress, but they did not cut spending and got little or nothing implemented. It was just a lot more campaign crap for us all to unite behind because we were stupid enough to believe that they would actually change something. Good intentions go right out the window as soon as new people cross the border into Washington D.C. There was next to nothing about any commitments to seal up our borders and address the illegal immigration problems according to all of the conservative radio hosts that I listen to. I am not going to waste my money on buying the book Young Guns.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Ya know I wonder why nobody ever talks about reforming the Democrat Party. Bringing them back to a more conservative attitude could drastically change the political climate...

 

[Fletch]

I don't think you're being quite fair, either. The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac problems started with the Democrats in 1993 and Democrats resisted any efforts to rein in the relaxed mortgage lending issue during Bush's Administration. TARP was proposed and pushed by Bush's Democrat Treasury Secretary (another miscue in a policy of "a new tone in Washington").

And John McCain, George Bush, and Sarah Palin all jumped right on board.

 

[Fletch]

Ya know I wonder why nobody ever talks about reforming the Democrat Party. Bringing them back to a more conservative attitude could drastically change the political climate...

They have the same fears about the Greens that Republicans do about the Libertarians. They're desperate not to be split, but also desperate to hold the middle ground, so they throw just enough sops to keep the "extremists" from gaining real traction, but ultimately wind up just pissing them off. The Green Left is royally upset with Obama right now, just as the Libertarian Right was with Bush. Both Republicans and Democrats want the split to happen to the other party, so they can claim the middle by default. Republicans shout about vote-stealing Perot, Democrats say the same about Nader. I'm sure that somewhere in the shadowy recesses of both parties is a group of old men still having nightmares about George Wallace.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

And John McCain, George Bush, and Sarah Palin all jumped right on board.

While I don't agree with Bush's decision, he was following the advice of his "technical expert" in place. McCain is a RINO, so I understand why he supported it. Palin appears to be, among her other "failings" loyal to her party; she wasn't going to publicly contradict the guy who brought her to the dance.

It's easy for those of us with only personal or familial responsibilities to say, "They were @$$holes for making such-and-such decision"; and certainly it can appear that way, but there's a reason why Presidents start out their term with dark hair and almost always end their term with grey hair.

 

[Fletch]

While I don't agree with Bush's decision, he was following the advice of his "technical expert" in place. McCain is a RINO, so I understand why he supported it. Palin appears to be, among her other "failings" loyal to her party; she wasn't going to publicly contradict the guy who brought her to the dance.

It's easy for those of us with only personal or familial responsibilities to say, "They were @$ for making such-and-such decision"; and certainly it can appear that way, but there's a reason why Presidents start out their term with dark hair and almost always end their term with grey hair.

I can respect your POV, I just don't agree with it. When your "technical expert" tells you to do something that is foursquare against the values you supposedly hold dear, it's an opportunity to demonstrate how principles work, even in the face of adversity.

 

[CombatVet]

This really feels like a last ditch effort.

 

[pinshooter45]

My opinion

Read the entitre document, and must admit the basic principles seem sound. But is very vague on specifics, but how specific can you get in 21pgs? The bottom line is we need to VOTE for constitutional conservatives. Put pressure on our local Republican Party to support all their candidates. Instead giving up on people tha run against Andre Carson and the like. The best we can do is turn as much of congress over every election when the don't follow the will of the people. I don't always like the Republicans, but just can't vote for Andre Carson under any circumstances. Couldn't stomach John McCain in the primary, so I voted for Hillary. But couldn't stand Obama, so I had to vote for Mr. John. Many times it's the lesser of two evils. But if keep throwing the bums out every two years if they don't do what the promise...maybe they'll get the message!

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

While I agree with some of what you're saying, I don't think you're being quite fair to all Libertarian candidates. Rebecca Sink Burris has been on this forum with her message, so at least some of them are trying to get their message out. I expect the rest of us just aren't listening very hard.

People complain about the current crop of Republicans and how "they have no plan", but the fact is, they have lots of ideas, most of which we never get to hear because the MSM doesn't broadcast them. In fact, that is their major failing as a party (besides being almost as addicted to spending as Democrats). IIRC the 1994 "Contract with America" promised to bring the bills up for vote; it didn't promise to get them passed, and couldn't because the Republicans neither controlled the Senate nor the White House at the time.

I agree with most of the Libertarian platform. But the Libertarian Party is a third string political party. Not the ideals. The party. What does it tell you that they can't raise funds? That their message doesn't resonate with voters, and power players won't support them. Seems pretty easy to figure out to me.

The body politic is corrupt at its core. I don't view Libertarians any more or less corruptable than Republicrats, except that Libertarians have never held a single seat of substance therefore they haven't had the opportunity to show how corrupt they are. Based on their inability to appeal to anything other than a fringe of the right wing and less of a fringe of the left, we'll likely never find out.

I continue to maintain that Libertarians would be far more effective as a voting bloc of the Republican party than as a peel away group that guarantees their votes will never count meaningfully, and in instances will result in the worse of two evils being elected. Look at what the Tea Party movement has accomplished in less than one election cycle.

Since you brought up Rebecca Sink-Burris, I'm game. First if it's her, she has 39 posts. If I was going to run for Senate and had no money and no exposure and no name recognition and had no record to run on I'd be posting on forums like this 40 times an hour! Each! Her posts are mostly one liners that mean nothing. Most don't qualify as sound bites. She made a couple of subtantive posts on border security. I can't tell if she is for protecting our border or not. It looks like not. Typical political speak. Follow that up with NOT A SINGLE RESPONSE TO A SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION that has been posed to her. On more than one occasion she's posted one liners about the Fair Tax. There have been follow up questions. Nothing. Not a word. The gentle hushed sound of the breeze gently brustling through the trees is all you hear from someone that wants to represent six million people in the Senate. If you can't defend your ideas in a forum with a couple thousand viewers how the hell are you going to defend this State against the federal government?

It's not up to me to listen. It's up to them to get my attention. If they don't understand that they need to get out of politics.

On top of that add someone who espouses to speak for Libertarians and pushes the party who, on an open discussion forum, openly and offensively attacks someone for not being able to recite the Libertarian pledge. That smacks of political elitism to me, which is the root cause of all the problems this country faces.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

It feels like the 1994 pledge or "contract with America", updated with a few current ideas. That failed miserably then, IMO, and I don't see it being any better this time.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

It feels like the 1994 pledge or "contract with America", updated with a few current ideas. That failed miserably then, IMO, and I don't see it being any better this time.

So what's your plan? Gonna vote for the Libertarians? Or the Democrats? Or just not vote?

 

[Fletch]

So what's your plan? Gonna vote for the Libertarians? Or the Democrats? Or just not vote?

WWJD?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

WWJD?

Cast the thieves from the temple and return it to the righteous?

Or in terms that do not get you in trouble with the mods,

Cast the current politicians from the Congress and return its power to the people?

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

So what's your plan? Gonna vote for the Libertarians? Or the Democrats? Or just not vote?

Vote for the candidate that most closely holds my ideals. Regardless of party - or in spite of it.

 

[photoshooter]

Money in Politics:

The Independence Caucus on Vimeo

Ron Paul actually set some individual fundraising records from non-lobbying groups.

The political landscape is changing - but it isn't happening overnight.

With a few exceptions, most of the GOP candidates are big-government federalists - with the attitude of "I can't do much to reform the system at this level all by myself... but let me climb the power ladder and then we'll make real changes!"

That hasn't been working very well for us.

There is NO good answer this election cycle. All we can do is run a holding action against the Progressives. Unfortunately, we have to support folks almost as bad as the Progressives - big government federalists republicans (go look at Alexander Hamilton and Lincoln and see how they advocated or grew the power of the federal govt) - in order to stop the immediate loss of our rights and our country.

Make no mistake: the GOP are not saviors... they are merely a speed bump in the road to fascism/marxism. They are leading us in the same direction as the Progressives - just on a different highway.

 

[SavageEagle]

Ahhhh HA! They did merge the two threads....