April 30, 2009

New GOP Outreach Effort...National Council for a New America
— DrewM

Doesn't the name just make you want to run out and take back the country? Or a nap. One or the other.

Maybe this will turn out to be great or maybe it will, you know, die of its own weight and self importance.

In an effort to revive the Grand Old Party's image, congressional Republican leaders are launching a series of forums and town hall meetings to engage the American public in policy discussion.

...The first event will be held Saturday at a town hall meeting in Northern Virginia. Topics will cover the economy, education, energy, health care and national security.

Some of the names involved are good...former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Rep. Mike Pence and noted Jew Rep. Eric Cantor.

Some are meh...John Boehner, David Dreier, Roy Blunt, Mitch McConnell, Jon Kyl, John Cornyn and Mitt Romney

And some need to go away...John McCain and Lamar Alexander.

It's a little unclear on whether Palin and Stanford were contacted but apparently the group is open to additional participation.

This kind of top down crap isn't going to work. Where are the bloggers, the writers, the folks that organized the tea parties? A bunch of elected officials isn't going to get anyone excited or motivated. The GOP really needs to try and tap into the energy and vitality of the active base and build from there. Some craptastic roadshow of 'notables' who are mostly noted for being an endangered species in the world of politics isn't going to change much.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:53 AM | Comments (117)
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Sounds like the old group is the same as the new group. 

Posted by: Tami (no relation to the vaccine) at April 30, 2009 08:57 AM (VuLos)

2 Palin and Stanford are out.

Though clearly a wise move it ain't gonna go over very well with the teabaggers.

Posted by: honest cloud at April 30, 2009 08:58 AM (hOPQH)

3 This is ridiculous. McCain? Alexander? Romney? And Jeb Bush for crying out loud? No Bush will ever again receive my vote. Sorry Jeb. Never, never, ever again!

Posted by: Dave at April 30, 2009 08:58 AM (Xm1aB)

4
This is good. And I heard that they'll be using my idea of conducting townhall meeting to hear ideas and concerns.

Posted by: D-ling at April 30, 2009 08:59 AM (ick02)

5 God damnit!

WE DON'T NEED A NEW AMERICA!

WE NEED THE OLD ONE BACK FER CHRISTS SAKE!

Posted by: Boobies Make Me Smile at April 30, 2009 08:59 AM (weVyN)

6
We need to get rid of John McCain in that group and replace him with JD Hayworth, the next senator from Arizona.

Posted by: D-ling at April 30, 2009 09:00 AM (ick02)

7 Agree. There is no energy here, no excitement and nothing new. Attendees probably need to bring their alarm clocks . . . particularly those listening to McCain. I'm beginning to think these people haven't got a clue and just don't get it.

Posted by: rplat at April 30, 2009 09:00 AM (G1ArL)

8 I am wondering how you conservatives feel about this.  I want to get behind the Republican party, but i am not really a conservative.  I am mostly libertarian, and the libertarian is always going to be pretty "at odds" with the social conservative wing of the Republican party.  Is it even possible to have a movement that has libertarians and social conservatives as members, I mean in large numbers?

Posted by: doug at April 30, 2009 09:00 AM (Sa/HV)

9 #5 I agree, but the marketers didn't think a National Council for an Old America has enough pizazzzzzz.

Posted by: Dave at April 30, 2009 09:01 AM (Xm1aB)

10 Oh, and any party that has McCain (of either gender) as a member can mostly count me out.

Posted by: doug at April 30, 2009 09:03 AM (Sa/HV)

11
It's a start, right?

Look, I'll be the first one to bash them and call them c-suckers if it's nothing more of the same old call for bi-partisanship and reaching across party lines and abandoning core conservative values to pander to special groups, but let's give it a chance.

Posted by: D-ling at April 30, 2009 09:03 AM (ick02)

12 #8 And the libertarian constituency is important why?

Posted by: Dave at April 30, 2009 09:03 AM (Xm1aB)

13 Interesting... 4 of the 5 things listed as topics for discussion are things the government has no right to muck about with.... the economy, education, energy, health care and national security.   How many speakers does it take to say "the government has no role to play?"

Posted by: Ben Franklin at April 30, 2009 09:05 AM (qpkkH)

14 #12.  Hey man, I don't know if the libertarian contingency is important or not.  If you don't need my vote just tell me to fuck off.

Posted by: doug at April 30, 2009 09:05 AM (Sa/HV)

15 #11 Anything with McCain, Alexander and/or Jeb Bush get's zero chance from me. Non-starter.

Posted by: Dave at April 30, 2009 09:06 AM (Xm1aB)

16

congressional Republican leaders are launching a series of forums and town hall meetings to engage the American public in policy discussion.

What a concept! It's only about twelve years too late.

Posted by: flenser at April 30, 2009 09:06 AM (OQW4n)

17
That's old and busted.  We need new hotness.  Here's the outreach roadshow I can get behind:

- Miss California
- Mark Levin
- John Voight
- Fred Thompson
- Maybe Steve Forbes on the economic side

Posted by: The Chewbacca Defense at April 30, 2009 09:08 AM (AYVkM)

18

 Is it even possible to have a movement that has libertarians and social conservatives as members, I mean in large numbers?

Sure it is. Look at the GOP from the 1970's onwards. Of course it helps if the libertarians are more concerned about the size of goverment than about whether two men can marry each other.

Posted by: flenser at April 30, 2009 09:09 AM (OQW4n)

19
Is it even possible to have a movement that has libertarians and social conservatives as members
...?

Of course it is. From my perspective it seems like it's the Libertarians who don't want to coexist with the social conservatives, not the other way around.

As long as Libertarians don't say stupid shit like the social cons should shut up or should abandon their views on abortion and homosexual marriage, I'm fine with them in party.

You can believe what you want, and I'll believe what I want. And if want to reject a candidate who thinks it's okay to kill unborn babies, that's my right. I won't accept said candidate for the sake of phony-baloney PC "choice" and sure as hell won't accept said candidate in the hopes of gaining PUMA votes, for example.

Posted by: D-ling at April 30, 2009 09:09 AM (ick02)

20 Sorry, looking for one leader, not 20 or so.

Posted by: Cult at April 30, 2009 09:10 AM (+sBB4)

21 #14 Naw, I wouldn't tell you to fuck off unless you started acting like that asshat honest cloud. Heck, I agree with many libertarian principles, but I don't see any evidence it's a large enough movement to worry votes might be lost to the democrats. Seems to me libertarians are voting 1) libertarian or 2) Republican. The libertarians who are realistic vote Republican, and those who aren't will never vote Republican. It's always been that way. But hell, if you can prove that there is an electorally significant number of dope-smokers who can be swayed, I don't have a problem with the Republicans reaching out.

Posted by: Dave at April 30, 2009 09:10 AM (Xm1aB)

22 Meh. It's like trading in your Toyota Corolla for a Honda Civic, only less exciting.

Posted by: PaleoMedic at April 30, 2009 09:11 AM (yiNoG)

23
Great.

Here we go again. We're already repeating the same crap from the primaries.

Posted by: D-ling at April 30, 2009 09:11 AM (ick02)

24 #19.  Yeah I understand that.  Social Cons and libertarians will never see eye to eye, but I am perfectly happy to let them believe what they want and even to lobby for policies they support in the party.  I think keeping the government small and under control is vastly more important than having a unified social message.  If we accomplish the former, the latter can work itself out in the local polity which is ok with me.

Posted by: doug at April 30, 2009 09:12 AM (Sa/HV)

25
And the libertarian constituency is important why?

I don't think he's talking about the potsmoking wing of liberterians, but rather the "quit spending my money" wing and the "get the government out of my fucking life wing". You know, the people we are naturally allied with and need if we want to win anything more than dogcatcher.

Posted by: XBradTC at April 30, 2009 09:15 AM (/R8R8)

26

#21 Yeah, not sure.  I think there are lots of people who are "libertarianish" who vote democrat because they think the social stuff is more important than the economic.  I know a lot of conservatives aren't fond of the idea of appealing to independents, but what needs to happen is to convince these people with libertarian leanings that the Republican party is the best possibility of getting what they want.  At this point everything helps, and it seems strategically, focusing on LIBERTY is the way back, and I personally feel the libertarians have always understood that best (despite being a pack of kooks...)

 

doug

Posted by: doug at April 30, 2009 09:15 AM (Sa/HV)

27

National Council for a New America. *yawn*

Not quite up there with:

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall

or

I have not yet began to fight

or

We will all hang together or we shall surely hang seperately

or

Those who would trade freedom for temporary security deserve neither freedom or security.

Sounds like it was written by the Buick add agency.

Posted by: maddogg at April 30, 2009 09:16 AM (OlN4e)

28 #25 Of course we're naturally allied with the libertarians. So what's the point of asking whether the GOP can handle both social cons and libertarians? Of course it can. And has. For years. And of course there will be purists who will only vote libertarian no matter how much the GOP reaches out.

Posted by: Dave at April 30, 2009 09:19 AM (Xm1aB)

29
Bartism #34: The worst Republican is better than the best Democrat.

Fro example, I was not a Huckabee supporter, but Holy Shit we coulda done worse...and guess what? We did.

Sure, there are exceptions to the above rule, but it's rare, very rare. As bad as Specter is, I'll bet you can't name 5 Democrats in Congress better than Specter.


Posted by: D-ling at April 30, 2009 09:19 AM (ick02)

30 I am perfectly happy to let them believe what they want and even to lobby for policies they support in the party.  I think keeping the government small and under control is vastly more important than having a unified social message.

Then, for my part, welcome.  Have a brew.

Posted by: toby928 at April 30, 2009 09:22 AM (PD1tk)

31 #26 I don't know. I'm guessing a libertarianish type who votes dem based on social issues is, well.......more of a liberal than libertarian. In any event, isn't the core belief of a libertarian a small, constrained national government? If so, I can't see how a libertarian could vote dem.

Posted by: Dave at April 30, 2009 09:22 AM (Xm1aB)

32
The problem usually lies with the Libertarians. Most of them happen to be atheists (and former Christians) and they can't tolerate Christians, not the other way around. And that's the truth of the matter.


Posted by: D-ling at April 30, 2009 09:22 AM (ick02)

33

I think there are lots of people who are "libertarianish" who vote democrat because they think the social stuff is more important than the economic.

Those people are called "liberals". If you're cool with Obama and you obsess over the "injustice" that two men cannot marry, you are no libertarian. If you're cool with the Dems trampling on free speeh and gun rights, you are no libertarian.

This is how libertarians try to inflate their numbers, by saying lots of people are "libertarianish". But they're not.

Posted by: flenser at April 30, 2009 09:23 AM (OQW4n)

34 Dear Candidate for Office:
Look, $20 is a lot of money to donate to your campaign.  It isn't a lot of money if I'm hungry and want food, or bored and want entertainment, and it's nothing if I need something fixed, or if I forgot a birthday or anniversary. 

I'll pay, when you convince me you have ideas worth supporting.

How to reach me?  Paid advertising on a conservative blog.  Ace of Spades, Malkin, Powerline, even moderates like Instapundit (that amazon.whore probably charges a lot though), Volkoth, Alphecca, etc. 

To reiterate:  first good ideas, then you pay media that actually reaches me, then I pay to support you.  I know you want the money first, and maybe you want to pass on being a real, principled leader, but it's not going to work that way this time around.

Posted by: dustydog at April 30, 2009 09:24 AM (MDkjt)

35 How about the Lubatarian party?

Posted by: PaulianSleeper at April 30, 2009 09:26 AM (kJStm)

36

At this point everything helps, and it seems strategically, focusing on LIBERTY is the way back, and I personally feel the libertarians have always understood that best

Sorry, but I don't think libertarians have a clue about liberty. They don't know what it is and they don't know where it comes from. They just know they want more of it. They're like liberals with money.

Posted by: flenser at April 30, 2009 09:27 AM (OQW4n)

37 In an effort to revive the Grand Old Party's image, congressional Republican leaders are launching a series of forums and town hall meetings to engage the American public in policy discussion and give the impression they care or some shit like that so these people will stay home and not challenge them in primaries.

Posted by: Rocks at April 30, 2009 09:28 AM (Q1lie)

38 I dislike the name.  I don't want a 'new' America, I want the old one back.

New does not automatically = better.

Posted by: CONSERVATIVE (not RINO) in '10, '12 at April 30, 2009 09:29 AM (9GaPd)

39
To whom it may concern,

flenser will not be part of the outreach committee nor will flenser have a role in the public relations department.

Posted by: New America Council at April 30, 2009 09:29 AM (ick02)

40 The only workable idea for 2010 is a "contract with America II" that lays out fiscally conservative positions as it relates to the Congress.Obama will matter only in the context of judges or foreign policy blunders.
This of course means that congressmen will need to be on the same page and show a discipline that I doubt they have.The senate will go their own way as usual.
This council cant work- there are too many "leaders" which will produce "consensus ".
For better or worse it was a smart at the time to invest Newt with real power, a first amongst equals.

Posted by: jjshaka at April 30, 2009 09:29 AM (JpHc3)

41 Ah.  McCain's there?  Color me unfucking interested.

Posted by: CONSERVATIVE (not RINO) in '10, '12 at April 30, 2009 09:31 AM (9GaPd)

42 And by the way, we haven't really even delved into the brand damage Ron Paul has inflicted on the libertarian movement.

Posted by: Dave at April 30, 2009 09:33 AM (Xm1aB)

43

John McCain is part of the problem, and should not be considered when trying to find a cure.

These clowns are not serious IMHO.  They are showboating.

Posted by: maddogg at April 30, 2009 09:33 AM (OlN4e)

44 Any group with asshat Mitch McConnell in it is less than worthless. 

Posted by: Rudy Ray Moore at April 30, 2009 09:35 AM (o5vMm)

45 Mitch McConnell? Roy Blunt? And this is a "new" movement? Retarded.

Posted by: Dave at April 30, 2009 09:35 AM (Xm1aB)

46 So this townhall is being called to lecture us about needing to become more like democrats, it sounds like.  No thanks.

Posted by: Dang Straights at April 30, 2009 09:37 AM (Haq+B)

47 Sorry, but I don't think libertarians have a clue about liberty. They don't know what it is and they don't know where it comes from. They just know they want more of it. They're like liberals with money.

Flenser, I think you are conflating liberal potsmokers with "our" libertarians. Most of the folks here have at least some self identification with libertarianism. That being, they want the least government involvement in their lives consistent with an orderly society.

Me, I'm socially conservative. But I vote mostly on fiscal conservativism. I would note, however, most social-con issues are entirely reactionary. They have been forced to compete in the political arena because "progressive" elements have used the powers of the Congress and the courts to force changes on society that a majority of society doesn't support.

Posted by: XBradTC at April 30, 2009 09:37 AM (/R8R8)

48 This is what is demonstrably wrong with the GOP.  Let the Democrats have their shitty new America, 2 Americas. etc..  PATRIOTS know that to fix the mess that has been left in the wake of 'compassionate conservative' (tha fuck is that anyway?) nonsense and the 8 no 16 years of The politically correct onslaught brought to us by the Clinton machine and the MSM have all bust destroyed this country.

To HELL with any of this new garbage. 

How about a coalition of the Founding Father Genius?

Posted by: Boobies Make Me Smile at April 30, 2009 09:38 AM (weVyN)

49
McConnell and Boehner aren't my faves, but they got all the Republicans to vote against a couple of key bills, including the insane budget. That's no easy feat, especially in this cowardly political climate.

Posted by: D-ling at April 30, 2009 09:38 AM (ick02)

50 I would like to see a list of their first principles ... If they even know what that is.

Jeb Bush is a big open borders sort of fellow.

Posted by: tarpon at April 30, 2009 09:39 AM (7evkT)

51

if the Republicans want to win elections, they must include every damn voting person they can lay hands on.  because we are fighting immigrants & ACORN fraud.

the libertarians i know, the true ones, are great additions to our national conversation. 

and we will need RINOs too  (yeah, i know, yuk).  but they are helpful negotiating/mediating with the Dems which has to be done to run the govt.

be the big tent party.

Posted by: kelley in virginia at April 30, 2009 09:40 AM (g568/)

52 These guys want to do something to impress me then do something constructive

Even if you thought TARP was a good idea at the time it's application has been horrendous. Why don't they put forth legislation to fix it and have proper accounting? Everybody knows what the problems are, we don't really wanttotalk about it we want someone to try to do something.

Posted by: Rocks at April 30, 2009 09:40 AM (Q1lie)

53 #49 I wouldn't give McConnell and Boehner too much credit. By the time these last votes came around, congressional phone lines were jammed with damn angry Americans.

Posted by: Dave at April 30, 2009 09:41 AM (Xm1aB)

54 They could at least add a couple exclamation marks to spice up the name.  After all, it worked pretty well for Lamar!, didn't it?

Posted by: Tim at April 30, 2009 09:42 AM (3Wewy)

55 if your only comment on libertarians is "dope-smoker", what do you say to recent op-eds about legalizing pot?  its coming.  then we can tax the be-devil out of it.

Posted by: kelley in virginia at April 30, 2009 09:43 AM (g568/)

56 I've been a libertarian since about 2000 and on a national level still lean republican when the alternative choice is a big tax and spending Dimwitocrat. The caveat is that I always support local libertarian and state libertarian candidates when running.

I'm willing to live and let live on the social issues but I will not compromise on the notion that we need to restrict the growth of the federal government..


Posted by: Son of Liberty at April 30, 2009 09:43 AM (qmOxq)

57

"McConnell and Boehner aren't my faves, but they got all the Republicans to vote against a couple of key bills,..."

 

McConnell voted for TARP.  Also, Jim Bunning claims he's trying to destroy his re-election campaign.  The guy's a douche and not to be trusted.

Posted by: Rudy Ray Moore at April 30, 2009 09:43 AM (o5vMm)

58 Will Meeeeghan McCain be there?  Will there be a buffet lunch?  How will we new age Republicans know how to act unless Meeeeghan tells us how stoopid we are?

Posted by: Jim King at April 30, 2009 09:45 AM (NW0iD)

59 #51 We are the big tent party already. We're just removing the rude and obnoxious imposters and crashers to replace them with true fellow conservatives.

Posted by: Dave at April 30, 2009 09:45 AM (Xm1aB)

60
Libertarianism is too One-Size-Fits-All for me.

But then, most current isms are.

Posted by: toby928: Process Conservative Federalist at April 30, 2009 09:47 AM (PD1tk)

61 Kelly, I guess I'm using "dopesmoker" to differentiate from the small-government types here, some of whom probably indulge as well. And truth be told, the legalization argument is gaining ground with me.

I think what some folks are complaining about is folks who claim to be libertarian, but are really just liberals. Almost the opposite of social cons. I just don't have a good shorthand to describe them. Sorry for any confusion.

Posted by: XBradTC at April 30, 2009 09:48 AM (/R8R8)

62 My concern is .. that if all these "Town Hall Meetings" are nothing more than Democrat-lite programs then they are already doomed.

Posted by: Son of Liberty at April 30, 2009 09:50 AM (qmOxq)

63

The problem is not the image.  The GOP has a reality problem.  What are they?  Certainly not fiscal conservatives.  They don't believe in ennumerated powers. Certainly not private property, or freedom from government interference into our daily lives. 

They have proven they don't care about me.  I'm just returning the favor. Run a Constitutional, limited government, fiscal conservative and I'll be there, with my checkbook.  Keep running Democrats with Rs after their names, trying to pretend they are different from Democrats with Ds after their names and I'll stay home.  There are two teams of Autocrats running against each other now.  I'm rooting for mutual destruction. 

 

Posted by: MarkD at April 30, 2009 09:52 AM (MMy4A)

64 That's why I'm a conservative, not a Republican.

And the gap just got longer.

Posted by: Barry da man Obamacan at April 30, 2009 09:52 AM (NLtVk)

65 The top-down shit is disturbing. Same with the Tea Party now having a head, in the name of some PJTV identified folks.

These idiots are playing into the progressives stereotype.

Posted by: Barry da man Obamacan at April 30, 2009 09:54 AM (NLtVk)

66 if your only comment on libertarians is "dope-smoker", what do you say to recent op-eds about legalizing pot?  its coming.  then we can tax the be-devil out of it.

Posted by: kelley in virginia at April 30, 2009 02:43 PM (g568/)


And what good will taxing it do? It's a friggin weed, you can grow it anywhere. Pot will be worth about $50 a ton.


Posted by: Rocks at April 30, 2009 09:54 AM (Q1lie)

67 I'm an indy, but if I had to choose a party, it would be libertarian.  Naturally, the libertarian party and the republican party have differences, if they didn't they wouldn't be 2 seperate parties.  And we don't HAVE to agree on everything, but I think the biggest issue right now and in the foreseeable future is out of control goverment taxing/spending.  That is something we agree on.  IMO now isn't the time to write off libertarians as dope-smoking kooks, especially when most of us don't fit that description.

Posted by: yinzer at April 30, 2009 09:55 AM (/Mla1)

68

The GOP needs to get it's head out of it's elephant ass and quit being so snobby and stupid.  They keep parading out the old hacks trying to make them look new again.

The message needs to be about what is best for all Americans, not what is best for conservatives/Republicans.  That message is small government, principles and values.  We have to quit labeling people and boxing them into corners.   We also need to get out of their sex lives and their religion.  We are not the moral authority of this nation, only God is, and he is the one who will be judging all of us, not our politicians.

 

Posted by: HansonCooper at April 30, 2009 09:56 AM (DXHVe)

69

 Of course it helps if the libertarians are more concerned about the size of goverment than about whether two men can marry each other.

Or about smoking pot. My local Libertarian Losers (big "L" mind you, small "l" libertarians of the Republican Liberty Caucus are all right) seem to care about little else but smoking pot.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at April 30, 2009 10:01 AM (ujg0T)

70 I'm not down with the libertarians anti-death penalty stance.  And I'm assuming their official position on "coercive interrogation" is that their against it, but I'm not sure.  

Posted by: yinzer at April 30, 2009 10:07 AM (/Mla1)

71 #32:  I am both a libertarian AND an atheist, and while I do have issues with religion, I have nothing against christians and can happily coexist with them politically.  I *liked* Palin oddly enough...

Posted by: doug at April 30, 2009 10:16 AM (7k/CU)

72

I won't be traveling to Virginia so that I can sit quietly in a chair while dignitaries with microphones can tell me that they're listening to me. So here's my rupee's worth:

Economy. It's global; please treat it as such. Metrics are important, but the state of the economy is more than a GDP number and an unemployment datum.

Education. Teachers unions will soon be to school districts what auto workers unions have been to car companies.

Energy. It comes down to electricity and transportation; heat, too, for those of us up north. We need energy for these purposes. We'd like it to be inexpensive, and clean energy is preferable, but we have to have it.

Health care. People say "health care" like it means something specific, but in fact this is a broad range of several categories of issues. Perhaps it's time to articulate some specific problems and policy proposals.

National security. See all of the above. It covers a broad range of issues, it's global, special interests are counterproductive in this area, and we absolutely need it.

PS. Maybe these guys should find out why the Democrats have had such a nice winning streak lately.

Posted by: FireHorse at April 30, 2009 10:20 AM (w9FHT)

73 "Thank you for taking my question, (insert name here). Can you tell me why the Republican party can't or won't keep the important issues of economic stimulus through tax and regulatory reduction, fighting the crippling effects of emission overregulation, and making the country energy independent by using our own resources front and center at every possible opportunity?"

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at April 30, 2009 10:25 AM (ZGhSv)

74 I won't be traveling to Virginia so that I can sit quietly in a chair while dignitaries with microphones can tell me that they're listening to me.

Nicely said.

Posted by: toby928: Process Conservative Federalist at April 30, 2009 10:25 AM (PD1tk)

75

Wow, they went all the way out to Northern Virginia for a townhall.

Next: A deep-sea fishing expedition to Chesapeake Bay.

Posted by: Michael Rittenhouse at April 30, 2009 10:29 AM (2QFX4)

76
This effort is premature.  Wait until the 21st Hijacker gets the spendulus bucks out to his parasitic partners in looting.  Wait until he doubles the size of the federal workforce.

If we make it to 2010, then the battleground will be set for full-on class warfare.  The rest of us against the political class.  We focus on the House of Representatives and run on a platform of "starve the beast."

Posted by: MikeO at April 30, 2009 10:30 AM (hz67i)

77 The problem with libertarians is that too many of them cannot answer the question as to what libertarianism is without getting into an argument with another libertarian.

A lot of small-government conservatives call themselves libertarian, as do the pot-smoking hippies who are fine with big-government.

Give me a definition and then ask the question if libertarians can co-exist with social conservatives.

Posted by: Travis at April 30, 2009 10:32 AM (ifhir)

78

Sorry, I'd walk a mile to see Jindal.  Romney's terrific and so is Jeb.  Lamar, McCain, et al., speak for themselves, yet I would cross the street to see them.  Wonder what the Newt's up to.  One of my Dhimmi lobbiest friends got me a ticket to see him at a small reception here.  He is the real deal.  Wish I'd remembered to call him "Speaker" rather than "Newt."   Again, the toothless redneck DNA carries with it many unfortunate genetic proclivities.

If they visit either one of my home flyover states, I'll be there.  I do agree, however, that they need to integrate with the tea party ideals and organizers.

AND, and, any political conference is a learning experience.  I learned that in my region of Iowa, the last bastion of conservatism in the state, the politicians on hand for the Saturday legislative sessions at the library kowtow to labor representatives before they call on the taxpayers.  Since there's little industry here, why are they beholden to local unions?  More research needs to be done but you won't learn this stuff sitting home watching CNN.

Posted by: iowavette at April 30, 2009 10:34 AM (0JTac)

79

Well, I don't know if I am up to a full definition of libertarianism, but it seems to me that anyone who calls himself a libertarian ought to believe BOTH in small government AND your right to smoke pot.  A libertarian should support both economic liberty and social liberty.  Of course it all gets complex once you start debating the details.   I would advocate legalizing pot but not angel dust, for example.

But the fight against government expansion is becoming critical.  I understand the Republican urge toward ideological purity.  It is a perfectly understandable urge.  And it may be RIGHT.  If you can find another Ronald Reagan, maybe it will work.  But we have to win the battle against Obama and his commie crue, and we have to win it FAST.  Anyone with libertarian leanings should be an ally, and by libertairian I dont meant someone who is fine with big government but wants to smoke pot.  That is not libertarian....

Posted by: doug at April 30, 2009 10:38 AM (7k/CU)

80 Jeb Bush, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, and John Cornyn?

Bzzt. Try again becasue that's a fine way to thin the crowds right there. Or to ensure they arrive in larger numbers with tomatoes, tar, and feathers.

Sure, there are some decent alternatives in the bigger lot, but recycling or reintroducing proven failures, even if only marginally undesirable from a small-government bent, is not going to cut it.

Who was there during the Clinton era and when the GOP was there helping Bush grow government? Yeah, they probably shouldn't be attending. Yes, they're supposedly trying to "reach out" to the roots, but that's really bullshit. They had every opportunity to listen to the Right and conservative middle and opted out except when they were bludgeoned over the head (like during amnesty and comprehensive POS). This seems more an attempt to subvert the grassroots Tea Party than it is to actually change philosophically to classical America.

Maybe instead of a listening tour to hijack the growing masses' own power play, this National Council for a New America - after hiring a new ad agency to think up a better name - could go proactive, announce which government programs they'll cut (not reduce, actually cut), how they'll yield federal power back to the states and the individual, and earn some stripes proving they're capable of contributing preemptively.

It's really not a secret what the public is angry about. You don't need a "tour"... unless this is about showboating and proving you care about the children.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at April 30, 2009 10:42 AM (swuwV)

81 I would advocate legalizing pot but not angel dust, for example.

Posted by: doug

The problem is that you have to answer the question as to why yes for pot, but no to meth or angel dust.

The second problem is that you have to live in an entirely different society where medical treatment and social problems are NOT someone else's problem. Until you are willing to let addicts die in the streets you have a problem.

When other taxpayers are footing the bill, libertarianism doesn't make a great deal of sense.

Posted by: Travis at April 30, 2009 10:47 AM (ifhir)

82

This kind of top down crap isn't going to work. Where are the bloggers, the writers, the folks that organized the tea parties? A bunch of elected officials isn't going to get anyone excited or motivated.

Ur, eh, uh, Ace, I beg to differ.  If Sarah Palin were the headliner at one of these things, people would line up for blocks.  They had to keep moving the Richmond, VA venue last fall because of ticket demand.  They figured 6,000 would show; the turning-lib paper reported 20,000 at Richmond Raceway.

Posted by: Rush Babe at April 30, 2009 10:51 AM (LKkE8)

83

Travis, yeah i DO have an anser.  It might not be an adequate one, but I do have a reason.  I think that if there is a drug that greatly increases the statistical likelihood of violence it should not be legalized.   Exactly where the line is draw is a matter for debate of course, but if it can be shown to me that my belief that angel dust and meth do NOT greatly increase the likelihood of violence simply because of their use, then I would favor legalizing them as well.

The point you make about medical problems being a tax payer problem is a perfectly valid one, and it is one reason why medical problems should NOT be turned into the problems of others via taxes.  This is one of the reasons I think national health care is a problem.  My health issues are not your problem.

Would I be willing to let addicts die in the street?  I sure would.

Posted by: doug at April 30, 2009 10:53 AM (dxxkS)

84 #8 - Doug, I think there will be so many different factions hating Odumbass by 2010 and 2012, that we'll all join hands and sing Kumbayah at the polling places and then go back to differentiating ourselves after Palin wins.  So, yeah, I think we'll all get it together to try and outvote ACORN.

Posted by: Rush Babe at April 30, 2009 10:53 AM (LKkE8)

85

I said " Exactly where the line is draw is a matter for debate of course, but if it can be shown to me that my belief that angel dust and meth do NOT greatly increase the likelihood of violence simply because of their use, then I would favor legalizing them as well."

I said that poorly.  I believe meth and angel dust DO significantly increase violence in people who take them.  I meant if it can be shown to me that I am wrong, I would not oppose legalization.  I don't have any real data to back up my belief, so I might very well be wrong.

Posted by: doug at April 30, 2009 10:55 AM (dxxkS)

86

#84.  Haha.  Well if a temporary alliance can do the trick.  So be it.  Problem is, undoing the damage this halfwit political-parvenue is doing will take a LOONG time.

Oh what am I saying?  I actually do believe that the fact that the cretin was elected in the first place is drop dead proof that it is already hopeless....

 

Posted by: doug at April 30, 2009 10:58 AM (dxxkS)

87

The problem is not the image.  The GOP has a reality problem.  What are they? 

What the GOP badly wants to be is the political arm of the Chamber of Commerce. Almost all of its problems flow from that desire.

Posted by: flenser at April 30, 2009 10:58 AM (OQW4n)

88 I'm commenting before reading all the comments but jeezo pizza are there no marketing or PR guys these fellas can go to before they name something "The Pompous and Irrelevant Association of Beltway Peawits"? New America, New Chrysler, New Coke, Titanic and other brand failures.

Posted by: alo89 at April 30, 2009 10:58 AM (Z6cMA)

89

if your only comment on libertarians is "dope-smoker"

My biggest beef with the libertarians is their open-borders lunacy. How stupid do you have to be not to understand that filling the country with left-wing voters leads to larger government? As stupid as the average libertarian, it seems.

Posted by: flenser at April 30, 2009 11:03 AM (OQW4n)

90

Would I be willing to let addicts die in the street?  I sure would.

Posted by: doug

Most would not which is part of the problem. There are others having to do with what is considered damaging to the community (gin-mills in Britain/US urban blacks) at large. I think you are being more honest than many I have run into regarding some of the downside.

No society can exist without proscribing some kinds of behaviour, and too often libertarians (or at least the noisy ones) tend to be the 'Your not the boss of me' sort. 

Posted by: Travis at April 30, 2009 11:04 AM (ifhir)

91

#59  We are the big tent party already.

We only need the big tent if Megaton RSVPs.  Otherwise, anyone with freakin' commonsense and a massive distaste for Obumbles is welcome.

Posted by: Rush Babe at April 30, 2009 11:04 AM (LKkE8)

92

If Sarah Palin were the headliner at one of these things, people would line up for blocks.  They had to keep moving the Richmond, VA venue last fall because of ticket demand.  They figured 6,000 would show; the turning-lib paper reported 20,000 at Richmond Raceway.

------------------------------------------------------------

Totally agree with this.  She is the only one who will be able to do it.   You all need to educate yourself on what she does in Alaska and be prepared to defend her to all the stupid and opinionated morons who come out swinging with their bias, addled and spongy brains that soak in a lot of nonsense, but can't disseminate what is true and untrue.  One of them happens to be the person I live with and he will continue to get bruised and bloody until he sees the light.

Posted by: HansonCooper at April 30, 2009 11:05 AM (DXHVe)

93

Flenser, I think you are conflating liberal potsmokers with "our" libertarians.

I'm thinking of the libertarian theorists. Most of the "libertarians" around here are just regular small-government conservatives who happen not to believe in God and are disinterested in abortion. In other words, not really libertarians at all.

Posted by: flenser at April 30, 2009 11:08 AM (OQW4n)

94

What about those who desire liberty, in all its forms?

Who insist that we have the personal right to keep arms?

Who demand that the gov't not tap our phones/ read our email/ search our bank accts  unless they have a warrant?

Who believe that habeas corpus is an inalienable right, that the gov't can't imprison American citizens unless we get a court hearing?

 

When people like this are welcome in the GOP, I will rejoin.

Posted by: ChipD at April 30, 2009 11:16 AM (nWYl8)

95

Travis.  Yeah, the whole ordered civil society debate is a difficult one.  Of course giving people the right to go to hookers creates certain public health issues that don't exist to the same degree perhaps if you do not.  I admit there are good arguments for limiting liberty when it comes to certain things.  But the problem is, there are always arguments around to justify limiting liberty.  My only point is that there better be a DAMNED good reason to go around telling me I can't do something I have every right to do. 

Was pot illegal in early America?  It sure as hell wasn't.  

Even though I am in principle for liberty in all its forms I am not completely dogmatic about it and I accept that rational reasons for the state to proscribe certain behaviors exist.  I just want to be careful that the reasons aren't bullshit.  After all, the liberals think they have perfectly rational reasons for restricting your gun rights...

Posted by: doug at April 30, 2009 11:24 AM (UpJts)

96

Even though I am in principle for liberty in all its forms I am not completely dogmatic about it and I accept that rational reasons for the state to proscribe certain behaviors exist.  I just want to be careful that the reasons aren't bullshit.  After all, the liberals think they have perfectly rational reasons for restricting your gun rights...

Posted by: doug

I actually agree with most of what you are saying. I think much of that can be short-circuited by devolving power to smaller communities who can do as they please. The problem with some libertarians is that they want the power of the state to force such communities to act as they want them to, and then go away. It doesn't work that way. I support the community standards idea, and think that if the federal or state government can stay out of a question, they should.

Posted by: Travis at April 30, 2009 11:33 AM (ifhir)

97
Libertarianism *can* be completely correct.

The problem has been that the capital-L movement has been hijacked by libertines whose immediate goals align a little too  well with the lefties who want to erode the fiber of our civilization to the point that their collectivist cowardice is mainstream.

It's like the koranimals' hudna.  If it's all right for them to lie to take advantage of our systems until they can force us to kneel before their version of Zod, then can you trust what any adherent of that ideology ever says?

Are the libertarians really advocating for seemingly libertine causes to advance liberty, or are they really collectivists in disguise who know that toppling the staid institutions of western civilization is the quickest path to their marxist utopia?

Take, for instance, the drug legalization thing:  Somebody (Travis, I think) upthread already asked about letting addicts die in the street.  It goes beyond even that.  Do you think an addiction should give somebody membership to a protected class under the overreaching of our civil rights laws?  Of course, you won't.  But my fear is real in the reality under which we live.  And, if I were a marxist sack of shit trying to bring this country to its knees, I would support drug legalization so that our retarded laws would strangle us.

I propose a simple test:  How willing is a particular individual to *force* other people to do any given thing for

1.  Their own good

2.  The good of others

3.  The good of the guy doing the forcing

Once you start thinking this through, the mind cannot begin even to grasp the fortune (or divine providence if that's the way you roll) that brought us our founding fathers.

Posted by: MikeO at April 30, 2009 11:43 AM (hz67i)

98

If Sarah Palin were the headliner at one of these things, people would line up for blocks. 

 

the only problem is liberal trouble makers keep filing suit in Alaska against Palin anytime she leaves the state or does work for Republicans.  Most of the lawsuits are thrown out of court but I think the object is too bankrupt Palin to keep her from campaigning for the GOP.  Sad times we live in.

Posted by: Jim King at April 30, 2009 11:44 AM (NW0iD)

99 They're asking Palin, and her supporters are flooding her office telling her not to do it.

Frankly, these old guard people need to be stuck on a desert island and given the Bikini Atoll treatment.

Posted by: Pipe Barackage at April 30, 2009 12:09 PM (Z9IOH)

100 This is nothing more than a outreach to democrats and independents, the same ones who were supposed to jump aboard the USS McCain last election.

B.S.

Posted by: Barry da man Obamacan at April 30, 2009 01:14 PM (NLtVk)

101 "National Council for a New America" sounds and looks too much like the "National Republican Senatorial Committee", and that pack of dinosaurs can jump up and bite my ass.

Posted by: John Galt at April 30, 2009 01:42 PM (Ylv1H)

102

This article makes no sense!  The Tea Party happened to voice an opinion.  Now a group of Republicans want to LISTEN and you poo poo that?  It doesn't mean that they are running the show, it just means that there are Conservatives out there that WANT to listen. Sheesh!

Maybe I'm just PO'ed because you "meh"ed John Cornyn.  I like mhim.  He's a fighter, he is.

Oh yeah and GO Sarah Palin!  :-)

Posted by: texastickled at April 30, 2009 01:44 PM (Zhe1o)

103

I'll give $100 to anybody who will Primary McAmnesty. 

Anybody want to join me?

Posted by: TimothyJ at April 30, 2009 02:45 PM (IKKIf)

104 The same tired, sway-backed, pockmarked old whores. It's fucking embarrassing. Whatever many of them once were, they aren't now. It's like watching someone shit their pants in public and they have no idea. Someone needs to tell them that they're going to get to tend the rabbits and take them for a walk out in the woods.

Posted by: Carl hungus at April 30, 2009 03:29 PM (vgaob)

105 Posted by: texastickled at April 30, 2009 06:44 PM (Zhe1o)

I like Cornyn too. I put him in the "meh" category because he's not leading the GOP out of the wilderness. He's a Senate foot soldier, not the voice of a GOP revival.

That and two weeks ago he said Specter was the key to the GOP recovery in the Senate.  Not exactly looking to good there, is he?

Posted by: DrewM. at April 30, 2009 03:46 PM (hlYel)

106 The new goddam theme should be Death To RINOs. Or something like that with a Soylent Green slant. I'm always hungry.
This isn't really about RINOs in the Republican party anyway. It's about killing Commies. Not defeating them. Killing them. And then feasting on their juicy flesh afterwards. We don't necessarily have to eat them. We could feed them to our gigantic cockroach farms. Alive. Screaming. Sweeeeeet.

Posted by: Corona at April 30, 2009 04:59 PM (hyUeL)

Posted by: в񤤷ϥ at April 30, 2009 11:26 PM (djEoO)

108 Travis

Mike O

Are either of you awake?   Impossble to tell...

Posted by: sis at April 30, 2009 11:28 PM (hm0CN)

109 Travis and Mike O please telll me if you're up now

Posted by: sis at April 30, 2009 11:29 PM (hm0CN)

Posted by: ͽв at April 30, 2009 11:38 PM (djEoO)

111 This FLV Converter also is a FLV Codec which not only can decode or convert FLV to other format but also can code and convert other video format to FLV format perfectly and quickly. FLV Converter

Posted by: sdfasdfsa at May 12, 2009 11:19 PM (85HLz)

112 AVI to iPad Converter is just the most suitable tool for iPad which let iPad user freely convert various video or audio files to iPad just with simple clicks.
dvd to ipad

Posted by: AVI to iPad at August 18, 2010 04:53 PM (fwfah)

113 Your blog provided us with valuable information to work with. Each & every tips of your post are awesome. Thanks a lot for sharing. Keep blogging.leather holster

Posted by: star09 at February 28, 2011 01:43 AM (EKi11)

114 I want to take this moment to say that I really love this blog. It has been a good resource of information for me. <a href="http://bestfuturetechnology.com/">Best future technology</a>

Posted by: Best future technology at April 16, 2011 03:20 AM (pbW0s)

115 I like this post and I'm sure people would do much more than just read, they act. Great stuff here. Please keep it up....Mercedes-Benz Mobil Mewah Terbaik Indonesia::Meriahkan pesta ulang tahun bersama GarudaFood::Mari Berkomunitas Di Faceblog

Posted by: Mercedes-Benz at June 02, 2011 09:30 PM (xJe3c)

116 Since the beginning of the year, Bank of America has increased its outreach to regions that have experienced some of the most significant impact from the downturn in the economy and housing market.This forum will engage in a conversation with America that seeks to remove ideological filters, addresses the realities we are confronting, and speaks to the challenges our citizens are facing," Republican leaders John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mike Pence, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, John Carter, Pete Sessions, David Dreier, Kevin McCarthy, Roy Blunt, Mitch McConnell, Jon Kyl, Lamar Alexander and John Cornyn wrote in the letter.


computer vision technology

Posted by: computer vision technology at July 19, 2011 08:49 AM (2THw5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
140kb generated in CPU 0.34, elapsed 2.7389 seconds.
62 queries taking 2.5013 seconds, 352 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.