McCain abandoned GOP principles?

[Shogun]

looks like the "escape pod" routine to me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

looks like the "escape pod" routine to me.

That's because you're looking at your own belly button instead of the posts.

 

[jeffrockit]

You mean who nominated him? Cast your mind back to the primaries, and recall, if you will, which states he did well in initially, giving him enough of an appearance of an edge over his competitors for the limp, testosterone-challenged GOP to fall slavering upon him, proclaiming him "electable". You will see that the states in question were ones where - surprise! - Republican primaries are not restricted to actual Republicans.

Thanks for saying what no one else has said....the liberals won the nomination for MCcain not the conservatives as he was not one. They knew he was their best shot at putting Obama in. There was no conservative running!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There was no conservative running!

That's not true, Bob Barr was running on the Libertarian Party ticket.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Thanks for saying what no one else has said....the liberals won the nomination for MCcain not the conservatives as he was not one. They knew he was their best shot at putting Obama in. There was no conservative running!

I was supporting Duncan Hunter until he dropped out. After that, I pretty much viewed the entire thing as a fiasco looking for a place to happen.

 

[DiveCon]

I was supporting Duncan Hunter until he dropped out. After that, I pretty much viewed the entire thing as a fiasco looking for a place to happen.

i was too

but he ran an AWEFUL campaign

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's not true, Bob Barr was running on the Libertarian Party ticket.

I wasn't what you would call a huge fan of Bob Barr's even before this, and I tend to think Libertarians are yammering, one-issue wackjobs.

I tell you, never in my life have I seen a slate of Presidential contenders that made me want to write, "To Hell With It!" across the ballot more than this year's.

 

[DiveCon]

That's not true, Bob Barr was running on the Libertarian Party ticket.

and he didnt even get the usual libertarian votes of 2%
what did he get? about 0.5%?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I wasn't what you would call a huge fan of Bob Barr's even before this, and I tend to think Libertarians are yammering, one-issue wackjobs.

I tell you, never in my life have I seen a slate of Presidential contenders that made me want to write, "To Hell With It!" across the ballot more than this year's.

Many Libertarian's were not fans of Bob Barr's either. Being a Libertarian, I have to ask you to explain why you think we're "yammering, one-issue wackjobs."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

and he didnt even get the usual libertarian votes of 2%
what did he get? about 0.5%?

I believe it was 0.4%, it was very disappointing. Barr ran a pretty bad campaign, had very little money, and lost many Ron Paul supporters to Chuck Baldwin by insulting Ron Paul. Not to mention many Libertarian's didn't like him in the first place.

 

[Cecilie1200]

i was too

but he ran an AWEFUL campaign

True. I got the impression that, like Tancredo, he was really only in it to try to bring some attention to conservative issues and stances, not because he really wanted to be President.

On the other hand, I'm pretty resigned to the fact that anyone who's likely to be a strong conservative candidate is going to essentially be ignored, shunned, and silenced by the media to keep anyone from ever noticing him.

 

[DiveCon]

True. I got the impression that, like Tancredo, he was really only in it to try to bring some attention to conservative issues and stances, not because he really wanted to be President.

On the other hand, I'm pretty resigned to the fact that anyone who's likely to be a strong conservative candidate is going to essentially be ignored, shunned, and silenced by the media to keep anyone from ever noticing him.

you got that right
but the media sure gave Ron Paul a lot of attention(compared to the others)
and the reason why was because he made conservatives look like fools
ron paul did more harm to the conservative movement than he(or his supporters) will ever understand

 

[Cecilie1200]

Many Libertarian's were not fans of Bob Barr's either. Being a Libertarian, I have to ask you to explain why you think we're "yammering, one-issue wackjobs."

Because many of your brethren are yammering, one-issue wackjobs. I don't know if you've noticed.

I can appreciate the attitude that all government sucks by definition. I really can. However, I get the distinct impression that many Libertarians I have talked to have not really thought this out clearly and rationally, because they tend to let it lead them into a sort of kneejerk anarchism.

And I hate to break it to you, but so many people are waving their lighters in the air, saying, "Libertarians are so cool, dude" simply on the issue of legalized pot that they're making the entire party look like a bunch of stoned-out one-trick ponies whose thoughts aren't much deeper than their bongs.

I realize that, obviously, everyone in the party isn't like that, but it's not doing much for your public image.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

you got that right
but the media sure gave Ron Paul a lot of attention(compared to the others)
and the reason why was because he made conservatives look like fools
ron paul did more harm to the conservative movement than he(or his supporters) will ever understand

Could you explain this further?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I believe it was 0.4%, it was very disappointing. Barr ran a pretty bad campaign, had very little money, and lost many Ron Paul supporters to Chuck Baldwin by insulting Ron Paul. Not to mention many Libertarian's didn't like him in the first place.

And was it just me, or did the media seem strangely determined to black out any topic but the one they had decided they wanted to talk about? I have never seen such a tight, restricted focus in the news before.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Because many of your brethren are yammering, one-issue wackjobs. I don't know if you've noticed.

I can appreciate the attitude that all government sucks by definition. I really can. However, I get the distinct impression that many Libertarians I have talked to have not really thought this out clearly and rationally, because they tend to let it lead them into a sort of kneejerk anarchism.

And I hate to break it to you, but so many people are waving their lighters in the air, saying, "Libertarians are so cool, dude" simply on the issue of legalized pot that they're making the entire party look like a bunch of stoned-out one-trick ponies whose thoughts aren't much deeper than their bongs.

I realize that, obviously, everyone in the party isn't like that, but it's not doing much for your public image.

"That government is best, which governs least." - Thomas Jefferson

I don't consider myself an anarchist because I believe in limited government, I simply feel that the government needs to follow the Constitution as it's supposed to.

We can't really help who supports us or for what reason, and we're certainly not going to change our beliefs on that basis. We just have to hope that people won't judge us all based on the actions of some.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"That government is best, which governs least." - Thomas Jefferson

I don't consider myself an anarchist because I believe in limited government, I simply feel that the government needs to follow the Constitution as it's supposed to.

We can't really help who supports us or for what reason, and we're certainly not going to change our beliefs on that basis. We just have to hope that people won't judge us all based on the actions of some.

Like I said, I'm totally with you on the concept that government sucks by definition. But a rational, mature person can't let that lure them into sounding as though they don't realize that in the phrase "necessary evil", "necessary" is every bit as important a word as "evil".

And I would never suggest changing your beliefs for anyone but yourself. What I AM saying is that it's dangerous for a political party that wants to be taken seriously on a national level to allow itself to become, perhaps erroneously, identified by one issue alone, and particularly one that is personified in people's minds by the image of Cheech and Chong.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well if people are only able to identify us by one issue then I would suggest they do more research.

- Limited government
- Individual liberty
- Non-interventionism
- Free market

Are all important aspects to being Libertarian.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well if people are only able to identify us by one issue then I would suggest they do more research.

- Limited government
- Individual liberty
- Non-interventionism
- Free market

Are all important aspects to being Libertarian.

Yes, well, you've also just explained why the Libertarian Party is having so much trouble gaining traction as a national party. You "suggest THEY do more research". Your public image is YOUR problem, not everyone else's. It's up to YOU to get your message out, not loftily suggest that people find out what your message is.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes, well, you've also just explained why the Libertarian Party is having so much trouble gaining traction as a national party. You "suggest THEY do more research". Your public image is YOUR problem, not everyone else's. It's up to YOU to get your message out, not loftily suggest that people find out what your message is.

No, the Libertarian Party is having trouble gaining traction because of the Republican and Democrat duopoly in politics. They maintain their stranglehold over debates and media air-time, and there's nothing a third party can do because they lack the resources of the two "major" parties. If the Libertarian Party can't get into the debates, and the media barely covers them then how do you suggest we get our message out anymore than we have?

I'm happy to let anyone who shows an interest in Libertarianism know what it's about, but we're simply not in a position to reach the masses like Democrats and Republicans.