Well, it’s not that the GOP isn’t “ideologically pure enough.” It’s that is has nothing to offer me. Back in 1994, I thought it did have something to offer and that the GOP would move things in the right direction, but I was quite young and maybe a little naive at the time. Since then, government has only gotten bigger, more authoritarian, and indeed more socialist in a number of ways.

As for the claim that I help the Democrats win by not voting for the GOP, that can be refuted with straightforward logic. I have many Democrat friends, and they say exactly the opposite, that I help the GOP by not voting for Democrats.

Now, both claims cannot be right — I can’t be helping both parties win by not voting for either of them. Furthermore, the symmetry of the situation is such that either both claims must be right, or both of them wrong. Therefore, both claims are wrong. By voting for a non-establishment candidate, I don’t help either one; in my tiny way, I oppose both of them, and that’s exactly what I want to do with my vote.

The conservative wing of the Republican Party … which does not include President Bush … does uphold limits to governments and limited spending. But they are too often outflanked by northeastern liberals and southern opportunist RINO’s.

If the Republicans deliver on some of their promises from 1994 — abolishing cabinet departments, de-federalizing education, slashing the budget — then I’ll vote for them again. But they’ve got to deliver at least some of the goods before I’ll even consider it. I’ve been fooled before.

When I was in college, I would have considered myself libertarian, but I grew out of it. And it wasn’t because libertarians could never get power, it was because libertarians uphold some ideas that I thought were just too destructive, such as unlimited immigration, unlimited abortion, unlimited drug availability. (As a foster parent, I’ve seen the damage drugs do to families, and especially children, and therefore I could never support unconditional drug legalization).

I mean, libertarianism is a nice philosophy. One of the worlds in my sci-fi novels is, essentially, governed by libertarian principles and is very pleasant. But, on planet Earth, in the 21st century, in the real world, and with the current state of man, contemporary libertarianism seems to often to dodge reality and practicality in pursuit of pure ideology that takes no account of human or social consequences.

The conservative wing of the Republican Party … which does not include President Bush … does uphold limits to governments and limited spending. But they are too often outflanked by northeastern liberals and southern opportunist RINO’s. Ultimately, though, I prefer Conservatism too libertarianism.

On another related, but different topic, I don’t vote Republican, but I have to hold my nose when I vote Democrat more often than I care to admit. Democrats are just as much schmucks as Republicans, just for different reasons.

Only… it wasn’t. By 1998 I saw little reason to believe the lies anymore.

Since supporting commies and liberals isn’t an option either, I chose the libertarians. Even now, realizing that they have no chance of winning, I’ll still vote for what I believe from now on, rather than making concessions to liars and thieves.

I suppose this kind of response will garner accusations of being a liberal from those who seem to think that I must support Republicans and Conservatives in general, regardless of how often they fail. I mean, so far that kind of response seems to be the order of the day from a few of the regular posters. I’ll apologize in advance for not being able to “seig heil” very well. I’d take lessons in that, if they weren’t so danged expensive, especially in the long-term.

Yesterday my family and I were discussing the internet gambling ban over lunch (yes, we’re like that! ). The wording of the law gives the government the authority to order internet entities to remove hyperlinks to sites that violate this law. What this means, for one thing, is that the government could order Google not to provide search results for internet gambling sites or financial institutions that deal with them.

This is kind of funny/scary, considering that representatives from Google had to appear before Congress earlier this year to defend itself for doing exactly the same thing for the communist government of China.

I kind of suspect that the government would never enforce this part of the law. In a weird way, I hope they do, because it would cause a big media stir and legislators might think twice about doing this sort of thing in the future.

I know that an internet gambling ban can’t be seen as a major issue given what else is going on in the world, but could there be any plainer an example of the government’s (and both establishment parties’) basic disgregard for individual freedom… for letting us live our lives and spend our money in whatever peaceful manner we choose?

I don’t trust the government to use these powers only for good purposes. We’re not supposed to just trust them — there has to be accountability, which is why warrants have to be issued, for instance. Giving government the power to monitor communications about terrorism is one thing; it’s quite another thing to trust government to stick within those bounds without having to account for its choices. That’s exactly what the Fourth Amendment is about.

Anyhow, when is the GOP going to get around to abolishing cabinet departments and de-federalizing education? It’s very much a part of my critique that they’ve continued the same kind of growth in the power and scope of government that most Republicans were promising to put a stop to ten or twelve years ago.

There’s legitimate concern, and then there’s tinfoil-hat paranoia.

Let’s keep the discourse civil and assume basic good will on each side when discussing these things, at least whenever possible.

There’s legitimate concern, and then there’s tinfoil-hat paranoia.

Once again, I am not saying that Bush is the sole source of the problem — far from it. On the Second Amendment, obviously, the liberals are far worse. I am just saying that government size and power has continued to increase under Bush and the GOP, and I think a few lines have been crossed in the wake of 9/11.

When I complain about the rise of state power, I’m also talking about things like the increased federalization of education (which is the opposite of what the GOP promised circa 1994 when I supported them), increases in spending even aside from military expenditures, and smaller but blatant violations of individual freedom like the recent internet gambling ban.

I don’t think anyone can tell me with a straight face these days that Bush and the GOP are friends of individual freedom and smaller government. If they were, I’d probably still be working within the Republican Party rather than dreaming of a new system entirely.

And I bet you also can’t name for me a single one of my Constitutional Rights or civil liberties that has been infringed by the “increase in state power” under the Bush Admin.

Accept my bait? I am not here to cause drama or mischief, and I hope that I have never been less than polite. There really does seem to be a pervasive knee-jerk hostility here towards people who aren’t on board with the GOP… yours is very mild, which once again I appreciate.

I ask these questions because I suspect that I share many of the principles of those here who describe themselves as conservative, but strongly disagree that the GOP embodies them well enough to earn my support (anymore). Obviously no one has an obligation to answer these questions, but I think it could be a fruitful discussion.

(2) In helping the GWOT, Santorum has been one of the good guys and (politically) stuck his neck out to challenge our useless and politicized Intelligence establishment, support the troops, etc.

(3) It’s a Senate seat… and if Democrats win the Senate, we can kiss an effective GWOT good-bye for at least a couple years.

Having said all that: I know of Santorum’s anti-gay remarks earlier in his career and I condemn those remarks. It’s only because I care about the GWOT that I could prefer him to Casey even slightly.

For those of you who prefer Santorum to Casey, what are the specific reasons for that preference?

Losing 2006 might just salvage 2008.

Assuming we live that long.

Well, on second thought, scratch that last notion.