I can tell you that in the Conservate forums I work in, where we're actually reforming the GOP platform, M. Steele is indeed getting a LOT, I mean a LOT of central attention to be chosen the RNC chair right now Ray.
Hey Ray, I got a website for you, will email it over...
Hey John, sorry, been busy, and we're getting Obama-whamma'ed too. So not to get too Dodd-trodden or having to swallow too much Reid-feed, I'll email you over another website where we're doing all sorts of good, you'll be welcomed in.
And bring the hottie in the Supergirl Suit with you, we'll give you free admission!
Lex, GS, Tamara and I are all over there already, along with about 100 other conservatives who started on this site John. We even have our own alternative energy threads going, and we're meeting in person to reform the GOP plancks.
What, beyond Kleptocracy, is the Conservative agenda? After having GWB at the helm for 8 years, 6 of which he controled the whole of the government, haven't you shown the nation the sum total of what conservativism means? Deficits without end. Endless handouts to the wealthiest Americans. The immizeration of the vast majority of the citizens. Vicious attacks on Black, Gay, Hispanic, Lesbian and Asian Americans. Even to the extent of denying access to general contractual arrangements. Torture as a standard of US conduct. Holding people without charges for years. A greater proportion of citizens imprisoned than Stalin or Mao ever could do. Sumptuary law without end. Internment camps where people are held for years fror no legal reason. Empowering private armies. All of this has been endorsed and supported by the conservative movement.
Pottery Barn rules: you break it you buy it. The way the US is now is completely and totally the responsibility of the American conservative movement. And this defines the movement which might as well call itself the "Herbert Hoover Party'.
I suspect that the response to my comments is going to be: 'conservativism never fails, it is failed by its supporters'. Well, last spring, conservatives had an opportunity to support an honorable and honest candidate, Dr Ron Paul. And virtually no conservative supported him. Dr Paul, someone I greatly respect and admire, was savagely attacked and deirided by conservatives. The savagery shown by conservative media and blogs towards the good Dr was amazing. Both RedState and LittleGreenFootballs cut off all Ron Paul supporters. The venom shown against a man who stated clearly and forcefully Libertarian ideas was astonishing. Campaigning against human freedom and dignatey, which were the main concepts Dr Paul advanced, was disgusting beyond words.
I am a strict small 'l' libertarian. Dr Paul was a highly acceptable candidate. The way conservatives treated this fine and decent man, was repulsive. These days, I usually vote Democratic because Democrats are more reliable on personal freedom, social issues and foreign policy. And increasingly on fiscal discipline.
Perhaps your unnamed groups could begin by working on a good reason why conservatives should support the micro-management of individual marriage partner choices. This seems to be a central tenet of conservativism.
I voted for Ron Paul when he ran against Bush I in 1988. As a conservative, I just distanced myself from the Libertarians when NORML hijacked it in the last 10 years or so. They made it (Libertarian Party) the butt (pun intended) of a joke since, in my opinion.
So, by making the legalisation of m******** the 600 pound gorilla in the room, it was the Libertarian Party that left conservatives, not the other way around.
Why do poitical parties have to cling to certain issues to get some kind of excitement generated in order to get a following? The simplest tenets of conservatism, i.e. less government and taxes, secure borders, etc. just aren't enough to draw a crowd. Nowadays, political parties have to bring in issues that have nothing to do with effective government. You cited marriage issues, add other red herrings like pledge of allegiance and prayer in schools and any number of religious issues,
Libertarians were never hijacked by NORML. Back in the 60's, Libertarians were firmly anti-drug laws, long before NORML ever existed. The first LP platform in 1972 called for legalizing m********. LIbertarians have taken this position since at least the 1840's.
And it's not just m********, Libertarians call for the decriminalization of all drugs and for addiction to be treated as a medical problem, not a legal one. This would drasticly reduce the size of government; over 50% of all inmates are in on drug charges. Releasing them would dramatically reduce government spending. And reduce the power of the government over all of us.
For a "strict small "l" libertarian", you sure sound like a guy who wants to tout the Libertarian Line.
I'll take your word on their m******** or drug position since the 1840's. I didn't know that. I voted for Ron Paul the man in '88, he could have been on the Canibalist party then. (Not to be confused with the Cannabis party now)
I have just seen enough drug abuse to know that abuse won't go away by making it legal. That is, without making some kind of caring, expensive program for the abusers. If they had an idea of stopping drug abuse by making it legal, and taking care of the abusers like the Chinese did in the early 20th century, then I might go for them. Hell, I'd even write them a check!
But, all I hear from Libertarians is that we could cut down on the size of government by legalising drugs. Like the rising tide could float all character if it was only alowed to do so unhindered by laws.
Anyway, that is why Ron Paul didn't get anyhere this time, in my opinion. I am fully aware that I might be in the minority on this. I don't have anything against them, I just don't understand them.
It is just one of those single issues that will always stop a party from getting traction with the majority of voters.