Here’s my response to the NRSC request for a donation:

http://afencepost.blogspot.com/2009/09/fund-raising.html

As to your aside — I’ll put my libertarianism into context. I believe in the enumerated rights in the US Constitution as the basis for the size, scope and power of the Federal Government. Nothing more. Nothing less. I do not like the idea of the (R)s running to push an anti-gay marriage amendment into the Constitution under Bush but I support their effort because at least it was a Constitutional act. It wasn’t judicial fiat. However, Raich v. Ashcroft WAS judicial fiat that the (R) supported.

The inherent flaw in your argument is essentially the same as most (R) arguments. The left is worse so ignore the problems on the right. Be with us or be against us.

The SoCons are absolute pikers compared to the Left.

And the reason I inferred that you were presenting that old canard was the construction of your sentence: “people who keep trying to push their religion and morals on me” contrasted with “latte drinking, patchouli-smelling, Birkenstock wearing hippies” in fiscal areas. If the second group, the hippies, were on the left, then the obvious conclusion is that you perceive the first group to be on the right (with big-L/little-l libertarians in the gloriously rational middle, natch [/sarc]).

And as an aside, even big-L libertarians “push their morality.” Only the anarcho-libertarians (an admittedly small group) take the philosophy all the way to its logical conclusion. Most libertarians acknowledge the need for some government-imposed guidelines in certain areas, enforced by the nation-state’s monopoly on the lawful use of force, to prevent chaos and regulate market interchange (contract law? physical crime — when your fist does, in fact, intersect my nose? etc). The moral choice made by these libertarians is: in what areas, and how far, do they wish to allow government to intrude? Some lean toward the left (govt regs of corporate and market behavior), some lean toward the right (regulation of individual, interpersonal behavior incl. contract, family, and inheritance law). But those “leanings” away from pure libertarianism are driven by their individual judgement of what is “right” and “good” according to their values. That’s the very definition of “morality”.

1) The MA law violates the 1st Amendment.
2) The EPA is currently screwing my State (Ca) and I’m against junk science and eco-crap.
3) Roe v. Wade was an unconstitutional judgment.
4) Judicial Fiat is unconstitutional.

Nowhere did I say I was in favor of unconstitutional games.

I live in CA, I do not need to be preached to about how retarded the left is on many issues. It is worth pointing out that the right is equally as stupid on many issues. MA shouldn’t be allowed to use judicial fiat to push gay marriage, however, if the people of MA vote for it the right shouldn’t run to the argument of a constitutional amendment to take that state issue away.

Likewise the right shouldn’t be pushing their morals in regards to drug policy, alcohol policy, language policy and so on and so forth.

There is hypocrisy on both sides and retardation on both sides. My point was simply that I’m a likely an anti-federalist as I believe in small government and libertarian policies. I equally want the left and right to keep their junk science (climate change) and moral crusades (drug policy) away from me and mine.

What about the moral judgement involved in the abuse of the Endangered Species Act? Identifying new “species” whose entire habitat consists of 1.3 miles of a certain river, whose members are indistinguishable from “sibling species” in the stretch downstream? And using these pseudo-species to shut down farms and impoverish families? (It’s NOT a case of “saving an entire species” is worth “unintended” harm — because it’s not a species at all). This is “we value [snail-darter-subspecies#27] over humans”. That’s pushing their values, their “morals”.

Or the moral judgement that Universal Health Care is worth any harm to (a) the medical industry (b) freedom (c) privacy (d) solvency? It’s “good” so we must do it. That’s a moral judgment.

Pay closer attention; every program on the left is framed in terms of a moral imperative. Tell me again who is “pushing their morals”?

The biggest example used against the Right, BTW, is abortion — but look carefully at what started the ball rolling: Roe v. Wade violated any kind of sound legal judgement, separation of powers, and federalism, to institute universal abortion on demand in all 50 states. The companion case Doe, as later interpreted, expanded that to “without restriction”. The Right has been fighting a rearguard action for 35 years simply to — what? — restore Federalism. Overturn RvW and return the power to individual states. And if you think our judicial selection process is dysfunctional, you can thank (a) the Court’s overreach in social areas, and (b) Ted Kennedy’s Adventures in Borking. If the Courts had just stayed the heck out of it, an honest look at history forces me to concede we would probably have ended up similar to where Europe is today: legal abortion with significant restrictions over minors, and late term. Individual states would vary in the details, much like different countries on the Continent vary. But we would have gotten there without all the acrimony and disastrous effects on our body politic, and horrors like partial birth abortion (“He’s still breathing? Well, just put him in the sink over there…”)

Or, take gay marriage. It’s the left-owned state court systems — with one exception — that have changed existing law by judicial fiat (MS was especially cool: the MS Superior Court issued an ultimatum to the Legislature: legalize gay marriage within six months or we will. Nah, that whole “separation of powers” thing is so passe’). At best, the Right has tried to restore the principle of “a government of the people” by getting referenda and amendments passed — by supermajority popular vote — in individual states. Prop 8 passed in LandOfTheLeft California, for God’s sake; this is not a fringe “rightwing” issue! And DOMA is the essence of federalism: we don’t care what NH does, as long as it doesn’t affect GA.

You want “pushing your morals”? Look to the Left; the religion of earth-worship and Gorebal Warming Hysteria (it’s important to increase mercury content of American homes — I mean, ban evil incandescent light bulbs). It’s evil to drill for oil. It’s immoral to build nuclear power plants. It’s wrong to drive a (non-electric) car. Dietary sin laws: tax tobacco. ban transfats. tax cola. tax ice cream. ration health care by weight. C’mon, man: the Right — even the oh-so-scary “Religious” Right — are absolute pussycats compared to the Left.

I can say that to people who keep trying to push their religion and morals on me while at the same time telling those latte drinking, patchouli-smelling, Birkenstock wearing hippies to sit down, shut up and abandon the field of economics to the fiscal right.

But I don’t see that happening.

So, what you’re really arguing is the same old “shut up, sit down, and go to the back of the bus, you gap-toothed inbred snake-handling socons, and abandon the field to the relentless march of the social left”.

I can carry two signs [too]

Who knows? Some libertarians and independents may change their mind and return to GOP … especially if we can re-introduce to them our REAL Republican ideals as a ordinary citizens.

But here’s my dilemma:

Can we really carry two signs without looking like a partisan hack?

I think we can, depending on the personalities we are campaigning for.

Tea party is really a good opportunity for us, ordinary Republicans, to be heard by the rest of the Americans principles… unbridled consevativism … no political ambitions, just pure belief on principles.

In fact, we are better positioned to communicate our ideals than the politicians themselves. The problem in the last 4 years was that we – the ordinary Republicans, was demoted to as “apologists” for the Republican leadership.

There’s really a difference in defending “Bush in his policy stance”
and defending “conservative/republican principles of which Bush policies may or may not be consistent with”. The first one is defending more of the personality behind the issue. The latter is defending a principle with the concerned person only secondary to the main argument.

We can no longer rely to our R leaders and politicians who generally “look” like hypocrites and liars on TV especially before the eyes of confused independents and non-trusting libertarians. [Of course, this can a case-to-case basis.]

We need to separate the R brand (i.e., the principles) from the R politicians (although no one is really perfect), especially from the erring RINOs (whose errors and mistakers are inexcusable.)

At this point in our history, I think that we can only effective to take back the Congress if we can usher new faces of Republican candidates, instead of the old, incumbent ones.

Imagine if all the old (at least 2 termers) Republicans take the Grand Sacrifice of mass resignation or even “not seeking re-elections” to pave way for new breed of Real-Honest-to-Goodness Conservative leaders. That could be a glorious moment in our history as a party. REPUBLICAN PARTY WILL RISE AGAIN LIKE A PHOENIX WITH A CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH OF MORAL INTEGRITY. Good incumbents can take the higher role of senior advisors to RNC’s party policy platforms and endorsers of new but highly qualified individuals. [Of course, I'm just dreaming.]

But there’s still a missing link. The American people are generally “populist” but not yet “socialist”, besides their conservative leanings. This is another aspect of policy overhaul for the Republican Party: How to strike a balance on conflicting principles.

Democrats have resolved this by pushing for the so-called Party-within-a-Party. Although effective in bringing voters into their party, the problem of inconsistent policies is so obvious. I think we can do this by “finding out the commonalities in our ideals, not the difference.”

As a minimum, I can go along with fusion of libertarianism, populism, federalism and conservativism , with the caveats, that all these policies should be properly framed and implemented consistent with the US Constitution, including the proper roles and authorities of Federal and state governments.

Why I’m ranting like this?

I believe that “making a complete overhaul of our party’s policy platform that fully responds to the demands and concerns of the people” as heard in the Tea Parties and townhall meetings should be prioritized first.

WE NEED A UNITED STAND AND A UNITED VOICE. Other concerns should be agreed as “secondary” to our cause.

I can start campaigning if I’m pretty sure that the person I’m campaigning for is really a good person with the right balance of populist/libertarian/conservative/republican principles. If not, my effort shall only be a futile exercise,

But that’s just me. he he he!

While we join, support and defend Tea Parties, we also have to assess consolidate what the people really want and the same concerns can be addressed by a political party, i.e., Republican Party.

My general observations:

1. The voices in the Tea Parties are a mix of consrvatism and libertarianism, although some viewpoints are federalist in nature.

2. Specific to spending, some are against both in Iraq War (a costly endeavor) and Bailouts.

Is GOP willing to absorb the concerns of the conservative libertarians?

Are the social conservatives willing to make adjustments?

Is the Republican Party really up for the job?

I don’t really know the answer.

The movement consists of different pieces woven together which is why I am also my county’s newest Precinct Captain and also why I am attending GOP BBQs this month campaigning on the side of Karen Handel. I first heard of her at the Redstate Gathering and your endorsement means something to me. All of it put together equals a well-rounded conservative.