Ugh.

Here in Minnesota, the newly-elected Republican legislature, instead of dealing with our massive budget deficit, is dealing with the real pressing issue that the state faces: banning human cloning.

I'm at the point where I'm advocating retroactive abortions of all Right-to-Lifers.

If its any consolation, it doesn't matter what logo they print on the money. If the politicians, of both political party's, continue to spend like they have for the past 60 years, the dollar will be worthless. Vote for the individual, not the party, and you will save yourself a lot of aggravation.

Meh. So that would make you vote for a non-conservative candidate simply because he or she was not a Republican?

You know that is what I love about libertarians. They get their panties in a wad about meaningless crap like paying lip service to religion that the conservative right brings up for a vote in congress, so in their outrage they run on over and vote for democrats who shut down energy production in this country ( in their misguided attempts to mollify Gaia and the tree hugging left) which is far more damaging to all of us as tax payers and energy consumers.

Remember the Supreme Court stands between you and a State religion (it ain't gonna happen) but NOTHING other than election results stand between you and either a. freezing in the dark or b. a 90 percent marginal tax rate which will insure that union workers retire with full benefits but YOU never will.

Sigh, this is what pisses me off about social conservatism. There are plenty of social/cultural issues that are actually relevant to society, but instead they focus on stuff like this.

HOWEVER... and I do not use the all-caps gratuitously here... there is a backstory. Once upon a time (like, say, back in the 1960s), social conservatives attempted to address what they saw as the most serious issue of that era: the rapid expansion of entitlements, and its potential adverse effect on our culture. For daring to do so, they got bitch-slapped by pretty much the entire rest of the country. So, after that (and after losing the argument on abortion), they retired to their corner, where they have remained ever since. The younger social conservatives learned the lesson from their parents that their presence in the political sphere is not desired by anyone else.

So they went into the (not entirely) self-imposed political exile, of which we see the evidence above. I know from personal experience that trying to get a social conservative to engage the really significant issues is really difficult. They see themselves as a sub-culture, isolated from the greater society to the extent that they can practically do so, sort of an intellectual Amish-ness. So if you want to get a social conservative's input, you really have to make an effort to engage them. And yes, they will likely speak from the viewpoint of a Christian background, which creates a visceral reaction in a lot of people. You have to get past that. I've said before that if you strip off the supernatural aspects of Christianity, you are still left with a very good and moral system for living. Overlook the loaves and fishes and try to get at what they are really saying.

You know why? Because we see now that their criticisms of the entitlement culture from half a century ago were spot on; it has evolved exactly the way they said it would. I don't think too many people here realize how viciously the soc-cons were attacked for these views. Pat Moynihan wasn't a Republican, but his expression of soc-con views of welfare back in the day got him brutally parodied as a fat drunken warmongering racist for years afterward. As late as 1980, the National Lampoon was still doing that number on him. You think soc-cons didn't notice that? You think they didn't get the message?

So yeah, the proper response to stuff like the email Amy published is: "Why don't you expend your resources on an issue that matters?" And while the specific missive is rather silly, the bigger issue is the debasement of the culture in general -- of which Amy wrote in her recent book. So yeah, we all have a bit of the soc-con in us. And we have no right to expect soc-cons to just roll over and give up on issues that matter to them.

I'm so happy to know that they've solved all the other pressing issues facing the nation that they have time to consider this.

Wait, what do you mean we still have a 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit and no budget for next year?

Fundamentally Unserious.

Fuck them all with a spork.

I am an atheist too. I find the whole "In God We Trust" thing a little silly.

I do disagree as to your belief that the first amendment is applicable to this issue. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; * * *."

I think the original intent was to prohibit the creation of a state religion, cf Church of England.

While I acknowledge slippery slopes, I am not sure that the motto, "In God We Trust" rises to the level of creating a state religion or a particularly slippery slope.

As you aptly note, there are certainly more critical issues confronting us, e.g. creeping Sharia Law, which is not a religion, but a totalitarian ideology.

"Um, don't assume libertarians are a monolith or vote Democrat when push comes to shove. Republicans are largely a disappointment -- again, the party of pretend small government that goes off on these little expeditions to push their religious values on the rest of us, when your great grandchildren will be licking the boots of our owners, the Chinese, as I wrote somewhere yesterday."

Amy, there are currently only two REAL choices when you vote. You can pick A or B, Democrat or Republican. Anything else at this moment in history is about as viable as writing in Mickey Mouse on your ballot.

You are naive at best if you believe that voting for an "individual" is a viable option, or it makes you sound smart or sophisticated (someone who has researched the issues and can reliably predict HOW your individual will vote on the issues that are important to you.)

Why don't you consult with all those smart sophistacted voters in Virginia who supported Jim Webb for the Senate because he was a better person than George Allen ( and was not one of those nasty social conservatives )

How bout the good people of Nebraska who put Ben Nelson into office because he was a really good guy, not like the "other" socialist Democrats who didn't understand the fiscal realities.

What BOTH the voters in Nebraska and Virginia got was a Big D DEMOCRAT who was beholden to his fellow democrats and the unions for all his political funding, knew where their bread was buttered, and passed the most massive socialist program in history in a straight line party vote.

So tell me again, how you can get good government by voting for an individual?

I think real political choice only happens in the primaries right now and how you fund and support those individuals within whatever party you chose to go with, is the only way any change is going to happen.

Believing anything else is pie in the sky "dreamin"

It really frustrates me that so many Republicans can't get it through their heads that, in America, religion should be a personal matter; it should not be the basis for public policy.

Good moral system? I find St. Paul's views on women very immoral, actually.

At least the supernatural stuff is entertaining. But the crap people have piled on afterwards is NOT a good moral system.

I think Isabel is playing right into the hands of the Democrats and Republicans. Until they realize that people will take their votes elsewhere, (Libertarian, Independent, et al) nothing is going to change. If more people would vote based on who they really would like to see in office, rather than trying to make sure their vote "counts" by voting for a "D" or "R", perhaps the major parties would get the message.

"Again, I vote for the least odious person for the job. In California, it was clear that the odious Barack Obama would take the state over the odious John McCain, so I registered a protest vote for the loser Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr. I also voted for Fiorina and Meg Whitman, and our loser Governator before that. I voted for Schwarzenegger with some optimism, and found it unfounded. I'd vote for Chris Christie for California in a hot second, and I'd vote for Jeff Flake as my Congressional rep if I could."

So in other words, you might have well as stayed home as you voted for no one who actually won, or did anything you were in favor of after they were elected.

No one cares about your protest vote. Tell me in 20 years,(or even 4) that some politician is going to be influenced on any issue by the fact that Bob Barr got four percent (or whatever) of the vote in California?

Voting in a general election is MEANINGLESS.
The only thing that counts and will get you somewhere is forming an organization or contributing to one that will represent SOME of your interests in the body that they are elected to. And if a whole lotta others don't join with you in this effort, it is going to be for nothing.
The tea party has done a pretty good job of this and realizes that the real battles are going to be in the primaries.

Let's hope that someone like Chris Christie gets enough support to make a go of it. If you believe in him, send him some money, don't sit there and wait for his name to possibly appear on the ballot in the general election. By that time it is too late.

"The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

"I think Isabel is playing right into the hands of the Democrats and Republicans. Until they realize that people will take their votes elsewhere, (Libertarian, Independent, et al) nothing is going to change. If more people would vote based on who they really would like to see in office, rather than trying to make sure their vote "counts" by voting for a "D" or "R", perhaps the major parties would get the message."

If we had a parliamentary system you would be correct. There would be somewhere else to go and you could build a party through the grass roots, and build it by taking some seats in the governing body. The Greens were very successful at this in Germany. Unfortunately, or fortunately our government is a republic with a great deal of power reserved to the states, (not to be confused with "the people") although the feds are trying to erode that as fast as they can.

But what you call "playing right into the hands of the democrats and the republicans" is a platitude and a slur against those who understand US political history, and our "winner take all" system (which would require a constitutional amendment to change.)

Elections take place within the states, and you have no power over voters choices in other states other than sending money to a national organization or to a candidate or state organization in one of those other states.

I understand these realities and don't have an imaginary magic wand to "just make things different" like you apparently have Al.

"Wrong. People five years ago hadn't heard of libertarians. Many, many know about libertarians now."

Dead wrong. Again. I voted libertarian in 1980 back when I was young and naive and didn't understand the political system.

1980 election

"The Libertarian Party nominated Edward Clark for President and David H. Koch for Vice President. They received almost one million votes and were on the ballot in all 50 states.

Clark published a book on his programs, entitled A New Beginning. The book's introduction was by Eugene McCarthy. During the campaign, Clark positioned himself as a peace candidate and tailored his appeal to liberals and progressives unhappy with the resumption of Selective Service registration and the arms race with the Soviet Union. When asked in a television interview to summarize libertarianism, Clark used the phrase "low-tax liberalism," causing some consternation among traditional libertarian theorists, most notably economist Murray Rothbard.

Ed Clark's running mate in 1980 was David H. Koch of Koch Industries, who pledged part of his personal fortune to the campaign.

The Clark-Koch ticket was endorsed by the Peoria Journal Star in Peoria, Illinois,[6] and received 921,128 votes (1.06% of the total nationwide).[7] This was the highest number and percentage of popular votes a Libertarian Party candidate has ever received in a presidential race. His strongest support was in Alaska, where he came in third place with 11.66% of the vote, finishing ahead of independent candidate John Anderson and receiving almost half as many votes as Jimmy Carter."

As it says in the piece, this was the best Libertarians have ever done.

Let's hope that someone like Chris Christie gets enough support to make a go of it. If you believe in him, send him some money, don't sit there and wait for his name to possibly appear on the ballot in the general election. By that time it is too late.

Christie's doing some interesting things. But I think his moderate social views and support of New Jersey's gun control laws would lead him to fail the purity test that is the primary season. As would Mitch Daniels, who is quite accomplished as a governor, particularly when it comes to fiscal issues, is being attacked over his statement in favor of a temporary "truce" on these sorts of hot-button social issues so that other pressing needs could be addressed.

Sorry you are unimpressedby my stats on the 1980 election. I will respect your opinion on the political parties and our republican form of goverment when you address the arguments that I pointed out in the last several posts.
you mostly have just talked past the criticisms I have made.

You think that libertarianism is the coming thing? As a libertarian, I disagree. It has been around a long time and done far better at the polls in 1980 than it is doing now. Matt Welch writing a book about it will not amount to a hill of beans.

Socialism has found it's place within the democratic party. Libertarianism will do the same with the Republican party or will manage to morph the Republican party into something it can live with.
If it does not, there will be no viable place for it as the current two party system does not allow for it.

The republican party is not historically" socially conservative" It was pushed in that direction by the disaffected southern religious blue collar democrats who brought their social values in along with their votes as they fled the big government socialist, anti individualist rights agenda of the democratic party in the 60's 70's and 80's. It can be pushed the other direction through grass roots organization, money and primary choices.
Sitting back passively and thinking that a protest vote or picking the lesser of two evils at the polls in the general election has no historical evidence of achieving anything.

"Christie's doing some interesting things. But I think his moderate social views and support of New Jersey's gun control laws would lead him to fail the purity test that is the primary season."

I have to admit that I am not as sure as you are about Christie's position on gun control.

He commuted the sentence of that poor guy who got seven years in jail for having guns that were legally purchased in Colorado in his trunk in New Jersey. This was the legally correct thing to do because it preserved the guy's right to appeal the conviction, and possibly get it thrown out, along with being able to challenge the New Jersey gun control laws on a constitutional basis.
If Christie had just pardoned the guy, his right to appeal would have gone away as it would be moot.
I also am not as sure as you are about needing ideological purity to get through the presidential primaries in 2012. Just as it seemed to be "anybody but Bush" for the democrats in 2008. In 2012, it may turn out to be "anybody but Obama" the way things have been going.

Ultimately people usually vote their pocketbooks, if they can get a clear idea of where their economic interests lie. They now know, that those interests for an extremely large portion of the population are not with Obama. And they should know, after watching the health care bill get railroaded through, that they are not with the Democratic party. (Of course, if you are on welfare, medicare or collecting social security, different story)

If you are like me, I am usually at best 60-40 percent in favor of one candidate or party over the other one. No one pleases me 100 percent and I don't expect them to.

However, I do know which issues are important (mostly the economic ones) and I try really hard to not get distracted or outraged by some fringe element that tries to push my emotional buttons on issues like religion, patriotism, wire tapping, privacy, the Second Amendment or war crimes because these issues are designed to inflame your passions against the other party/candidate and are almost useless in trying to factor them into a rational choice at the polls.

The Supreme Court has spoken on many of these issues and worrying about them in deciding which party to support is mostly a red herring designed to stampede you into voting out of fear.

Also, As Ted Kennedy once famously said, "you can never go wrong voting for a bill that doesn't pass or against a bill that does pass." :-)

This should not have even been brought up. I quite frankly don't care, because when we're using the bills for toilet paper because it is cheaper than a roll, that will give these religious morons a realization. ("Paper" money has cotton in it.)

I do disagree as to your belief that the first amendment is applicable to this issue. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; * * *."

I think the original intent was to prohibit the creation of a state religion, cf Church of England.

GreyingNW,

You are in the ball park, but rather it was a Federal religion, usurping the states' rights. Several states, at the time, had a state religion, or none at all. When they passed the Bill of Rights, the intent was to prevent the Fed from saying that we are going to be a Lutheran country, and the citizens of a state could decide that they wanted their state to have a religion.

I don't know, off hand, whether an individual state could still do it today (i.e. SCOTUS rulings, etc.)

That was the concept behind it.

Amy, there are currently only two REAL choices when you vote. You can pick A or B, Democrat or Republican. Anything else at this moment in history is about as viable as writing in Mickey Mouse on your ballot.

Usually, I think Mickey Mouse is a better option than the two major parties.

I also am not as sure as you are about needing ideological purity to get through the presidential primaries in 2012. Just as it seemed to be "anybody but Bush" for the democrats in 2008. In 2012, it may turn out to be "anybody but Obama" the way things have been going.

It's possible that "anybody but Obama" would be a motivating factor to voters in the general election, but I don't think that will apply as much during the primaries. The Democrats in 2008 had a long and protracted primary fight because there were two candidates who had very strong support of different components their base – but both of whom were generally consistent with party orthodoxy on the issues. Ultimately, I suspect that it was Hillary's early support of the Iraq war that sunk her.

I suspect that the Republican primaries will proceed along similar lines in 2012. In many of the early primary states, social conservatives are the dominant force in the party, and they seem likely to avoid candidates who are heterodox on their issues. This is why they poorly-funded and organized campaign of Mike Huckabee was able to last so long; McCain was not seen as trustworthy by these voters. The need to appeal to social conservatives is also evident in the pandering of people like Mitt Romney, whose pro-choice and pro-gun control views reversed themselves when he needed to appeal to the Republican base outside New England (Romney's pandering is a great indicator of what pollsters think the Republican base wants).

While this analysis does not preclude someone less than entirely orthodox on social conservatives' issues winning the Republican nomination, that person would have an uphill battle against someone whose credentials in that area are more solid. This is why I think someone like Huckabee or Palin, whose social con credibility is unimpeachable, would seem to have the clearer path – despite being the less appealing general election candidate – than someone like Christie.

As long as the government continues to spend 378 bajillion dollars a minute, 24/7/365, it doesn't matter all that much who gets elected.

It is going to be very interesting.
Usually the winner comes down to who is willing to throw the most money at their candidate, and who is willing to do anything to win the caucuses.
Those states that caucus to chose their candidate are more vulnerable to manipulation of the process by party insiders rather than the party electorate.

Those states which have open primaries are willing to let people of the opposing party in some instances chose their candidate. Obama benefited from some of this in the states that allow this.

I also think it is possible that Obama may have poisoned the well for the foreseeable future on the issue of "just trust me" to do the right thing while I pander to my different
audience at every campaign stop. The press being in the tank also aided him in a way that is probably only going to work once.

I am hopeful that this next election is going to be a "look at my record" kind of election, rather than a "just trust me because I am not the other guy kind of election"

Unfortunately most of the real economic damage is done in Congress.

There is no constitutional mandate for a 2-party system. There have been times in US history where more than 2 major parties have been relevant in national elections. Hopefully, there will again be such times. I don't believe I can wave a magic wand and make this happen overnight. I do believe that such an effort has to start somewhere, and it does not start by continuing to vote for Democrats and Republicans.

"At least the supernatural stuff is entertaining. But the crap people have piled on afterwards is NOT a good moral system."

Nicole, do you really think so? After all, Christian principles significantly influenced the formation of America and American values. What would you cite as a superior moral system?

Isabel has been around the block; listen to her. I'll take her sophisticated realpolitik over the libertarians' intellecutal vanity any day.

I'll guarantee you that 99% of actual Republican candidates are social moderates. It's the nature of the beast, with outgoing, striving personalities. They need to get elected and to do that they have to win primaries first. The gun rights and anti-labor and social con groups deluge them with questionnaires and invitations to forums; winning their approval gets you endorsements.

When you get into office, you throw a bone (sponsoring a bill) their way. If it fails, you can say you tried. It's not cynicism, it's just that they have to run an obstacle course to get where they're going.

Saying that, yes I hate those stupid chain emails that the GOP sends to its targeted voters.

The press being in the tank also aided him in a way that is probably only going to work once.

Unlikely! The press will have favorites in future elections, too, and that will influence low-information voters.

I am hopeful that this next election is going to be a "look at my record" kind of election, rather than a "just trust me because I am not the other guy kind of election"

That would be great. I'm not exceedingly hopeful about it, though.

"This is why they poorly-funded and organized campaign of Mike Huckabee was able to last so long; McCain was not seen as trustworthy by these voters."

McCain wasn't (and isn't) seen as trustworthy by any Republicans -- not the soc-cons, not the libertarians, not the neocons. He's left the party twisting in the wind one too many times. Inexplicably, all of the better candidates tanked their campaigns; I still don't understand why Fred Thompson more or less quit after the first primaries. There were also some somewhat credible accusations that cross-voting Democrats voted for McCain to stick the Republicans with an unelectable candidate.

"There is no constitutional mandate for a 2-party system. There have been times in US history where more than 2 major parties have been relevant in national elections."

no, but if you understand how our form of government developed you would understand why we have a two party system, that has endured now for 150 years with the same two parties, which is most of our nations history.

A series of election laws, state constitutions, and Supreme court decisions have locked that two party system into place.

Note the weasel words, "relevant"

There is a huge difference between relevant and "in power"
Do you consider the Ross Perot run in 92 to be relevant? Third party presidential candidates have only been relevant as spoilers where they have drawn off the fringe members of whatever political party they broke away from and threw the election to the party that remained intact.

A lot of election law is state law rather than federal law. States also control the drawing of the boundaries in between their congressional districts. Both the democratic and republican parties have a vested interest in maintaining their power and the status quo.
This is why you won't beat them with a third party, not now, and not in the future. Your only route is the one the Tea Party has taken. Win the primaries, beat the status quo incumbents or scare them enough to make them see it your way and adopt your agenda (if you can agree on one)

One of the biggest problems with the libertarians is that there is no internal agreement on what the legitimate functions of
government are. some of them are essentially anarchists and some are pragmatists.

The management and use of the military would have them fighting so badly among themselves, that they probably would never be able to articulate any kind of rational foreign policy, and their domestic agenda, I suspect, would be equally chaotic.

"Both the democratic and republican parties have a vested interest in maintaining their power and the status quo."

Which is why the two parties are really just separate factions of one party- the Big Government party. The only real difference between the two is what parts of your life they feel entitled to preside over.

Neither of these parties believes that you are competent to manage your own life without their supervision yet somehow, you're still supposed to be smart enough to go to the polls to choose one of them (and not the other) to rule you.

McCain wasn't (and isn't) seen as trustworthy by any Republicans -- not the soc-cons, not the libertarians, not the neocons.

I think McCain's reliably hawkish stances would have earned him support from the neocons. I might be wrong about that. I think he was more of a default candidate – he didn't generate a lot of enthusiasm among the hard core, but his universal name recognition, stolid support for the Iraq surge and "maverick" cred earned him support in some key states as well.

I also think that there is a tendency for parties to coalesce behind person who is perceived as being next in line, a tendency that favored McCain, who played good soldier for most of the Bush years. This is why many people think Romney is the current favorite in the Republican field. Not because he's the most popular person, but because he's due for it based upon his efforts the last time around (and his tireless support of the party since the last election).

Inexplicably, all of the better candidates tanked their campaigns; I still don't understand why Fred Thompson more or less quit after the first primaries.

My recollection was that Thompson failed to do what serious candidates need to do: put together a serious national organization, spend lots of time the year before the primaries in the early states getting to know voters and local politicos, and get party bigwigs behind them. Strong conservative credentials aren't enough if you haven't done the prep work.

The nature of the Republican nomination process, with most states using a "winner take all" approach also makes it hard for candidates who lose early to have much of a chance to make up for lost ground. This is what made Giuliani's "Florida or bust" strategy so insane. His candidacy was over before he over even contested a state.

Similar to you, I suspect that the only thing besides that motto on the coin that I could care less about is the email you reproduced.

I imagine it is hard to fundraise from Pauline Johnson, part time church secretary and full-time homemaker with twelve credits towards an associates degree, if your call to action discusses debt ratios, foreign exchange rates, Fed policy and marginal income tax rates. Somewhere north of 95% of people have no idea how important those things can be in their lives. So Ms. Johnson gets this sort of email, because she will "feel" that issue. You are on that same blast email list, it appears.

My guess is the guys sending the email find it a petty topic too, but they know how to get their bread buttered. Emails like that one.