tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21829866.post6569998121255337041..comments2023-08-20T07:06:14.115-04:00Comments on Thurber's Thoughts: Chuck Muth on Ron Paul and the Libertarian PartyMaggiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12677808307727487766noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21829866.post-23329336846264721702007-12-26T08:57:00.000-05:002007-12-26T08:57:00.000-05:00Obviously, TownCrier, you're a Duncan Hunter fan -...Obviously, TownCrier, you're a Duncan Hunter fan - and that's fine.<BR/><BR/>But I must take exception with you that a good administrator (which is what the president is) is also a good legislator (which is where many candidates draw their experience). Governance is not about how many new laws you can pass. In fact, as a Goldwater fan, I'd be more interested in how many laws a person had been able to 'repeal.'<BR/><BR/>I would say that the skills to be a good legislator are quite different from the skills to be a good mayor/governor/president.<BR/><BR/>Instead of comparing legislative accomplishments of the various candidates, I would rather compare their positions on upholding the Constitution, their ability to select good people to fill jobs (rather than their ability to 'advise and consent') and their ability to be leaders (rather than compromisers). <BR/><BR/>I'm glad you're such a supporter of Duncan Hunter - he has many good qualities that would carry over into the presidency - but, imho, the ability to pass new laws wouldn't be one of them.<BR/><BR/>BTW - I've yet to find any presidential candidate with whom I agree 100%...Maggiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12677808307727487766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21829866.post-35461023510713064222007-12-25T19:09:00.000-05:002007-12-25T19:09:00.000-05:00Since this mentions Paul and Hunter, let's compare...Since this mentions Paul and Hunter, let's compare.<BR/><BR/>Paul was never able to get one piece of his legislation through the process. He was a failure as a legislator.<BR/><BR/>Here’s where the Paul small government argument breaks down.<BR/><BR/>In a ten year period Ron CO SPONSORED 1876 bills written by other people. That’s 1000 more than Duncan Hunter. Now if you believe those 1876 bills were all to decrease government (remember written by others who Paul supporters say NEVER lower government!) , I don’t know what to tell you.<BR/><BR/>Ron Paul has proved he can’t ‘govern’. He has a zero record of accomplishments, except for pushing 1876 bills others wrote through congress. Small government guy?<BR/><BR/>Just for comparison of actual accomplishments in congress:<BR/><BR/>Sponsored means he wrote or introduced the bill. Co sponsors sign on to other bills written by someone else.<BR/><BR/>Statistics: Duncan Hunter has sponsored 105 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 72 haven’t made it out of committee (Average)<BR/><BR/>and 10 were successfully enacted (Good, relative to peers).<BR/><BR/>Hunter has co-sponsored 894 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers).<BR/><BR/>Now take a look at Ron Paul, who claims many ‘accomplishments’ and would never vote for any frivolous, unconstitutional bill!<BR/><BR/>Statistics: Ronald Paul has sponsored 346 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 341 haven’t made it out of committee (Extremely Poor) and 0 were successfully enacted .(Average, relative to peers).<BR/><BR/>Paul has co-sponsored 1876 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers) NOTE: 1876 bills, written by other congress members. All ‘constitutional’ ? You decide.<BR/><BR/>http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400191<BR/><BR/>One of the stranger pieces of legislation that Paul Co sponsored would have kept him out of the debates!!<BR/><BR/>. H.CON.RES.263 : Expressing the sense of Congress that any Presidential candidate should be permitted to participate in debates among candidates if at least 5 percent of respondents in national public opinion polls of all eligible voters support the candidate’s election for President or if a majority of respondents in such polls support the candidate’s participation in such debates. Sponsor: Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] (introduced 11/6/2001) Cosponsors (2)<BR/><BR/>See some of Paul’s CO sponsored legislation here:<BR/>http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-paul-gets-special-endorsements.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>Did you know Ron voted for amnesties in 1997, 2001 & 2002?TheTownCrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09895577376312152458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21829866.post-16573853223748460412007-12-19T01:38:00.000-05:002007-12-19T01:38:00.000-05:00Maggie, this writing is very fascinating. Recentl...Maggie, this writing is very fascinating. Recently, I read an article on the growing libertarian philosophy in my generation (I'm fairly certain it was in Time Magazine). I think I am a part of this movement. I'm very liberal on the social issues, yet I believe in a small government with low taxation. This requires personal accountability. Because of my strong stance on the government staying out of our personal lives, I usually vote democratic. I don't believe a bunch of old men should tell a bunch of young women what to do with their unwanted pregnancies. Yes if I had fathered a child accidentally, I would encourage its birth and support him or her. But I don't think that should be a federal issue.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, many people of my generation believe in taking care of ourselves. This issue was also raised in Time Magazine. Which party will attract this generation that believes in personal responsibility? The answer is the republicans. What our generation doesn't like is the republican ties to the evangelist movement. We don't like religion and politics mixing. This current presidential campaign shows that. If the republicans elect a nominee who is not tied to the religious right, the republicans will win the general election. I think republicans realize that. This is why moderates such as Rudy and Mitt are polling well. If the Rs want the youth movement, they will remove themselves from the religious right.Kurthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13295712494255160794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21829866.post-65033461311286471712007-12-17T09:17:00.000-05:002007-12-17T09:17:00.000-05:00Hooda Thunkit, Maggie, and All;This was a good pie...Hooda Thunkit, Maggie, and All;<BR/><BR/>This was a good piece. One could blame the Bush administration, but my real let down has been the Congress. This is truly a pack of big government thieves. If the party was serious about small “c” conservative norms then they would have elected Mike Pence as Minority Leader rather, Mr. No Track Record, John Boehner. Readily I admit that Boehner has done a good job so far, but his credentials were not there, and I saw him as a hold over of the Tom Delay crowd.<BR/><BR/>So when the 2008 election started to take shape I made a list of criteria I thought was important for a President, weighted them, and the looked at each republican candidate, including Thompson, and low and behold who came to the top, Ron Paul. Duncan Hunter was up there, but he has not been as stalwart as Ron Paul in holding true to the US Constitution. <BR/><BR/>I have no problem voting for Ron Paul and his foreign and defense policy because it actually very sound. It simply means pulling back from our foreign bases and increasing the size of the Navy and Air Force for greater strike capability. When you couple this with a solid border defense, what do we have to fear? With a well trained Marine Corp and Army that is not doing silly nation building and peace keeping training coupled with a robust Special Operations force, there is nothing we should fear. And that goes for a nuclear attack. <BR/><BR/>Let’s face some other facts, since 9/11 our intelligence community still continues to falter. So ask yourself, what any other candidates could do to make the situation within our intelligence community any better? Is having soldiers stationed in 56 countries going to protect us from a nuclear attack or is having a robust and compliant intelligence community? I think the answer is fairly obvious yet all the other presidential candidates are postulating about increasing the military and yet Ron Paul is the only one saying we need to revamp the intelligence community and pull the military back to home station United States. So who really is making more sense here? <BR/><BR/>I agree Ron Paul is breathing new life into the political process, I only wish more republicans would look to the US Constitution for their touchstone as well.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05043279868308825316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21829866.post-1883447026959567762007-12-17T08:30:00.000-05:002007-12-17T08:30:00.000-05:00As a recent convert to "l" Libertarianism, I canno...As a recent convert to "l" Libertarianism, I cannot help but look at this surge as a glimmer of hope for this country. All great things come from small beginnings, and we can only hope that this seed will grow.Timothy W Higginshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17118861693269565715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21829866.post-13641004819795963862007-12-16T22:51:00.000-05:002007-12-16T22:51:00.000-05:00Maggie,"Not that there's anything wrong with that....Maggie,<BR/><BR/><I>"Not that there's anything wrong with that."</I><BR/><BR/>Exactly!<BR/><BR/>And it would breathe some interest back into politics to boot!<BR/><BR/>Why, it gives one hope for hearing a truly conservative message...Hooda Thunkit (Dave Zawodny)https://www.blogger.com/profile/13176392380086227377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21829866.post-75312216363569481632007-12-16T21:34:00.000-05:002007-12-16T21:34:00.000-05:00Maggie;Please check out this speech I posted on my...Maggie;<BR/><BR/>Please check out this speech I posted on my weblog; it dovetails into this one.<BR/><BR/>“Let It Bleed: Restoring the Republican Party”<BR/><BR/>http://tinyurl.com/2ese5e<BR/><BR/>Best regards,<BR/><BR/>BrianBrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05043279868308825316noreply@blogger.com