Question for Republicans

Bro. Reed addressed that post to me and I answered it and will paste that answer here.

No, I do not believe that Bush needs another term. His job has taken a terrible toll on him personally and he and his family has served the ungrateful American people far better than we have deserved.

Here is my answer to Bro. Reed from the original thread:

I thought we were friends--that is the problem with politics is that it creates enemies for no good reason.

I have made it very clear that Ron Paul does not follow the GOP line but still clings to Libertarian ideas. For example, Ron Paul is against a constitutional amendment to protect the life of the unborn child. And there are other issues with him, some of which even violate Christian ethics.

Nor do I believe that the media is out to get Ron Paul--afterall Peroutka said the same thing in 2004. That line is just a form of sour grapes from Ron Paul because 99 44/100% of Republicans think that he is a nut. And I merely said that I thought the people looking at his video on the internet were the members of his old Libertarian Party, which he seems to still control and still seems to be the head of. What is delusional about that? I don't agree with the charge that it is just spammers, but I do say that it is not regular Republicans because I know that Ron Paul does not have a presence in Indiana, the most Republican of all states since 1860.

Ron Paul has ill-fitting clothes. Someone wrote me that they thought he dressed okay. Ill-fitting clothes is an English expression for someone's trying to dress to look like something that he is not. If you went around in a policeman's uniform, you would be wearing ill-fitting clothes because they would land you in prison. Ron Paul has tried to dress as a Republican but he is still a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian. That is why he cannot get any traction in the GOP. We in Indiana have had our fill of Libertarians for many, many decades because they cause close races to be won by Democrats.

In the case of Ron Paul it is most likely that he could not have gotten to Congress as a Libertarian so he decided to caucus with the GOP. However, he is a perennial as a presidential candidate so he just could not be satisfied until he tried the GOP primary.

I am leaning towards Fred Thompson.
__________________

 

And here is my answer to this post on the other thread:

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." - Ronald Reagan

"The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is." - Ronald Reagan

So I guess, cmg, that you don't consider Ronald Reagan to have followed the "GOP line", either. So I reckon that Ron Paul is in good company with Ronald Reagan.

 

Yeah, and I just answered that one on the other thread, Ken, and I also answered it several weeks ago when you first brought it up.

Reagan was GOP and favored many things that Libertarians and Ron Paul do not such as a constitutional amendment to protect the life of the unborn child.

All that I said about Ron Paul to start all of this trouble was that I did not think that spammers had run up the numbers on his video but that his former political party was undoubtedly still loyal to him as their chief thinker and former presidential candidate. I also said that Ron Paul was no where to be found in Indiana, the most GOP state since 1860.

 

www.l4l.org

 

Yeah, and I answered that one the last time you brought it up, also, Ken. So you are a minority within a minority. Let's see that must make you about .01 % or less of the American electorate.

 

More than .01% of the American people are pro-life regardless of how many times you say that, cmg.

 

Ron Paul will be a non-factor soon enough. The question for any such libertarian leaning Republicans or Independents is...do you want Giuliani or Hillary? Those will be your two realistic choices.

Now you can be a clown like Dobson who refused to vote for Dole and spit on the Republican Party but loves to have it as his audience when he pontificates as a moralist and in doing so you can insure the opposition (Democrats) win.

The grown-up will realize they cannot have everything their way. The grown-up will accept that in sometimes in life you are given choices that are what you believe are the lesser or two unpleasant choices (I don't necessarily see it that way but I am providing the scenario). So you can lose a finger and live to save your family and possibly recover more of what you want or you can lose an arm and lose the capacity to do a great deal for you family because you refused to pull your arm out of the spinning blade and instead insisted on some other route (IDIOTICALLY of COURSE but in the end you get to play the suffering martyr who stuck to his guns in spite of the needless disadvantage you brought upon yourself, but then you like being the martyr).

What's it gonna be?

 

1) Ron Paul is raising enough money to last through the entire primary process.

2) I consider the Democrats and the Republicans to be the opposition. I will vote for the Libertarian Party presidential nominee and hope that Hillary Clinton wins. And I expect her to win Arkansas without too much trouble.

 

No, and I wish I could revoke my vote for him in 2000 and 2004.

 

I am not a fan of W now either, but I can't imagine our country under Gore, or Kerry.

 

If my choice was between 43 and Hillary I would vote for Bush. Now, offer me someone else to run against Bush in this hypothetical and I might have a different response.

 

There is something wrong with your math, Ken. Did you go to public schools? Don't feel bad--it is not your fault. I was saying that pro-life libertarians must be about .01% of the American electorate. As you know, even Ron Paul opposes a constitutional amendment to protect the life of the unborn child and the overwhelming majority of Libertarians have historically supported a plank calling for abortion on demand.

 

Me, neither, but George W. Bush may have done irreparable harm to our nation as it exists today. Of course, Gore may have done the same thing. Since I think that most of this started in March 2003 it was already in effect before Kerry would have become president. I don't think he would have fixed anything but he wouldn't have caused it.

 

1) Pro-life libertarians make up more than .01% of the American electorate.

2) From the Libertarian Party platform:

"Individual rights should not be denied nor abridged on the basis of sex, age, dependency, or location. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for other people's abortions, nor should any government or individual force a woman to have an abortion."

 

Indiana has a two-party system that is very active. Birch has retired to his farm and has a new wife and a new family. He has been very quiet for several years. Evan got elected Governor for 2 terms. The women are crazy about him because he has Hollywood good looks and also his mother Marvella was very popular (she died of cancer). Evan sits in the Senate.

The Democrats cannot carry Indiana for the White House. Usually 1 or 2 minutes after the polls close, the networks give Indiana to the GOP. Of course, they stopped that practice after 2000. Indiana has 11 electoral votes now. It was higher.

The Democrats have not carried Indiana for a presidential race since LBJ in 1964. The Democrats carried Indiana in 1932 and 1936 with Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Also, Woodrow Wilson won Indiana in 1912. Before that, Grover Cleveland carried Indiana in 1892 and 1884. Samuel Tilden carried Indiana in 1876. That means that the Democrats have only carried Indiana 7 times since 1856, a span of about 150 years.

 

Republica presidential candidates have only carried Arkansas 6 times since Reconstruction ended.