Posted in Democrats, Libertarian, Republican, tagged American Conservative Union, bipartisan, Cincinnati, Congress, conservatism, conservative, Democrats, elections, Elections '08, foreclosure, free market, government, H Rider Haggard, House Minority Leader, John A. Boehner, liberal, liberalism, Libertarian, libertarianism, lower taxes, Ohio, Politico, politics, pork spending, POTUS '08, prejudice, Republican, smaller government, Steve Chabot, The Moderate Voice, US Government, William James on 2008.03.08 |
Leave a Comment »
The Moderate Voice, “None of the Above”
March 5, 2008 by Pete Abel
“As I grow older, I regret to say that a detestable habit of thinking seems to be getting a hold of me.” – H. Rider Haggard
“A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices.” – William James
So which is it? Am I an aging addict of the detestable habit of thinking, or am I merely rearranging my prejudices? Honestly, I’m not sure, but I do know this much: The libertarian impulses of my youth and the stoic conservatism of my early adult years are gradually giving way to the doubts of middle-age – doubts that are centered on two questions:
(1) Do I really believe smaller government and lower taxes are the cures to what ails us?
(2) When people are hurting and in need, is it appropriate for their government to turn away, claiming, “That’s not our issue; it should be resolved by individuals and the free market”?
Libertarian conservatives don’t doubt the answers to these questions. They respond “yes,” to both, without hesitation, without equivocation.
Twenty years ago, I would have been similarly clear-headed. I’m no longer so sure and, apparently, neither is 13-year Republican Congressman Steve Chabot of Ohio. According to a Feb. 19 article at Politico:
… Chabot has earned a 97.5 percent lifetime rating from The American Conservative Union and has largely stuck to the Republican ranks, except to oppose some pork-laden spending bills.
But when foreclosures in his hometown of Cincinnati skyrocketed, Chabot found himself aligned with Democrats — and against his party’s leaders, his conservative colleagues and the White House.
Chabot’s bipartisan dalliance illustrates how tough economic times could erode the Republican conference that House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) is counting on to blunt Democratic victories running up to the November elections.
So, let me get this straight: When rock-solid conservatives learn that their constituents are suffering, they suddenly decide government should do something about it?
Read the rest of this thought-provoking post by Pete Abel on The Moderate Voice.
Read Full Post »
Posted in Uncategorized, tagged 2008 Elections, campaigns, Chris Peden, Congress, congressional campaigns, congressman, consensus, democracy, District, election, Founding Fathers, Galveston Daily News, House of Representatives, issues, Libertarian, libertarianism, local politics, media, Paul Congress, philososophy, politics, POTUS '08, Republican, Ron Paul, voters on 2008.02.14 |
1 Comment »
From the Galveston County Daily News (letters to the Editor):
District Needs A Better Man To Represent Us
Are we really getting the most effective representation with Ron Paul as our congressman?
The presidential debates have exposed stubbornness and inability to compromise that is at odds with the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
Democracy requires negotiation and compromise to reach a consensus.
We negotiate and compromise in our daily life, at work and at home. Paul’s inability to reach consensus on vital issues makes him ineffective as our congressman.
He is a self-described Libertarian; if he is so enamored with Libertarian philosophy, why is he running in the Republican primary for Congress?
I welcome his participation in the political process and respect the views of his supporters as honest and sincere.
The question is, does he truly represent the values and priorities of the Republican voters in this district or is he using the Republican Party’s structure and established appeal just to get elected because he can’t get elected as a Libertarian?
If the latter is true, it is intellectually dishonest.
We need a Republican of conviction representing us in the U.S. Congress, not a Republican of convenience.
I urge readers to look at the sterling qualifications, impeccable character and genuine passion and sincerity of Chris Peden as our Republican candidate for Congress.
Peden is a pro-life, pro-family, conservative Christian who is a CPA and the mayor pro tem in Friendswood. He has a proven track record of not only fighting for our conservative principles, but of achieving conservative results. Paul is long on words, but a little short on results.
Just a few days ago, on the Michael Berry radio program, Paul said that being a congressman was his “plan B.” I don’t know about other readers but I don’t want to be anybody’s second choice.
The catchword for this year’s presidential election is “change.” It’s time for real change in congressional District 14 also. Paul is the past — Peden is the future. Let’s put someone in Congress who represents all of us, not just the Libertarians.
Read Full Post »
Posted in Uncategorized, tagged 2008 Elections, alcohol, awefuckingtacular, Barack Obama, campaigns, candidate, candidate interviews, cigarette, Clinton, courage test, Democrats, Dr. George Phillies, Dr. Phillies, gasoline, George Phillies, gift, Hillary, Hillary Clinton, honesty, inheritance, Kubby, Libertarian, Libertarian Party, mainstream, Obama, Phillies, political courage test, politics, POTUS '08, presidency, president, Project Vote Smart, questionnaire, Republican, Ron Paul, Senate, Steve Kubby, suspicion, tax, third parties, third party on 2008.02.14 |
3 Comments »
I just ran across a website called “Project Vote Smart“. This site gathers information from various candidates for office, so you can view it all in one place, and even very easily compare the candidates if you open them up in side-by-side tabs on your browser.
It is very interesting to see the “political courage test”, which pins the candidates down on the issues. Unfortunately, it appears that most mainstream candidates (including all of the presidential frontrunners from both major parties, and including Ron Paul) have refused to complete the quiz portion. However, Barack Obama did complete the questionnaire when he was running for the Senate, which gives a good insight into how he views the issues; while Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul both refused to complete it even when they were running for Congress. There is no older questionnaire information for any of the other frontrunners.I think it’s obvious why candidates wouldn’t want to complete it, since it can later easily be used against them. Accordingly, I think any candidate which refuses to answer those questions should be viewed with suspicion.
Some third party presidential candidates did complete the “courage test” though, including libertarians. I was quite surprised to see that I disagree with some libertarian candidates on a few issues I thought we’d agree upon. For example, I was extremely surprised to see that neither Phillies nor Kubby have chosen to eliminate inheritance taxes (Phillies wants to slightly decrease them, while Kubby wants to greatly decrease them). Yet why should the government get any of it, since it’s a gift from one person to another? Christine Smith is the only libertarian candidate to propose eliminating that tax.
On the other hand, Kubby wants to greatly decrease gasoline taxes and certain “sin” taxes (alcohol, cigarettes, etc) while Phillies and Smith want to eliminate those taxes altogether. On those tax issues, I agree with Phillies. I would agree with Smith, but she wants to eliminate ALL federal taxes (including income taxes); and while that’s an idea I’d love to get behind, I don’t think it is realistic, at least not at this time.
I will have to study the candidates’ responses a lot more closely, and I strongly suggest others do the same. While it won’t help much with regard to mainstream candidates who have refused to answer the questionnaire (and personally, I hold that against them because it is to my mind proof that they plan to say one thing to get elected, and do another once they are in office), it does give quite a bit of insight into third party presidential candidates.
Originally posted on Adventures in Frickintardistan
Read Full Post »