Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Now Playing at Reason.tv: Grover Norquist Says Leave Us Alone Already!
Americans for Tax Reform honcho Grover Norquist recently sat down with reason.tv's Nick Gillespie for a 45-minute conversation about Norquist's new book Leave Us Alone: Getting the Government's Hands of Our Guns, Our Money, Our Lives.
From the book's description at Amazon:
The modern Republican party is a coalition of groups and tendencies created during the political life of Ronald Reagan, based on principle rather than region and history. The new political movement that now controls much of the Republican party is one of Americans who simply wish to be left alone by the government. They are not asking the government for others' money, time, or attention. Rather, they want to be free to own a gun, homeschool their children, pray, invest their money, and control their own destiny.
They are the Leave Us Alone coalition, at the heart of the center-right, and Grover Norquist argues that it will grow in power and size during the next generation. Directly opposed to this coalition is the descriptively titled Takings Coalition, which is at the heart of the tax-and-spend left, and they will battle for control of America's future over the next fifty years. It is increasingly important to better understand these coalitions than it is the Republican or Democratic parties themselves.
In a compelling and powerful narrative, Norquist describes the two competing coalitions in American politics, how they are organized, what makes them stronger or weaker. What each can achieve and what they cannot do. And how you may fit into the contest as well as gain a deeper understanding of American politics-where it's been, where it is and particularly where it will go-through a series of eye-opening economic, demographic, and political trends that will shape these coalitions in the years to come.
In this wide-ranging, in-depth discussion, Norquist talks about splits among libertarians and conservatives, the many failures of the Bush administration and the GOP Congress, his trouble with Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the urgent need for reform in Social Security, health care, and education, and much, much more.
Click on the image below to view.
|5.2.08 @ 3:06PM|#
The new political movement that now controls much of the
Republican party is one of Americans who simply wish to be left
alone by the government. They are not asking the government for
others' money, time, or attention.
I can't believe the person wrote that with a straight face. This is
the same group that wishes they could still criminalize sodomy, has
no problem with suspending habeus corpus, wants to spy on citizens,
trashes the 4th Amendment and tries to impose religion in the
public square. I must have a completely different definition of
being left alone.
DannyK|5.2.08 @ 3:07PM|#
Does anyone still care what Grover thinks? After Katrina, do we still want to drown government in a bathtub?
|5.2.08 @ 3:17PM|#
Mo,
The operative word in "Leave Us Alone Coalition" is "Us."
The members of the coalition don't have gay sex. They aren't
Muslims. They don't think the government would spy on or single out
for surveillance people like them.
It's not a "Leave People Alone Coalition."
ed|5.2.08 @ 3:19PM|#
"...they want to be free to own a gun, homeschool their
children, pray, invest their money..."
And have sex with the daughters of their 14 wives. Is that so
wrong?
|5.2.08 @ 3:20PM|#
Norquist is my new favorite comedian.
I don't know whether he's lying or self-deluded, but guys like
Norquist are THE REASON that this libertarian-at-heart voted
Democratic for years. I looked at what Norquist was saying and what
the Republicans were actually doing, and figured the two had
nothing to do with each other.
Granted, after the Democrats rolled over and played dead through
this Administrations steamrolling of civil liberties, I have now
abandoned them too. But it's hard to create a cross-party
libertarian coalition when well-known "libertarians" like Norquist
are so obviously just party shills.
Christopher Monnier|5.2.08 @ 3:21PM|#
The association (explicit or otherwise) of libertarians with Republicans is harming libertarians and the ideas for which they stand.
Episiarch|5.2.08 @ 3:24PM|#
The association (explicit or otherwise) of libertarians with
Republicans is harming libertarians and the ideas for which they
stand.
Not only that, but we are also getting nothing from the
association.
We won't get anything from the Dems either but we need to get away
from the GOP.
|5.2.08 @ 3:25PM|#
The new political movement that now controls much of the
Republican party is one of Americans who simply wish to be left
alone by the government.
Bull shit! BULL SHIT!!
BULL FUCKING SHIT!!!
There isn't a trace of that left in the GOP. It hasn't been seen in
this millennium.
|5.2.08 @ 3:30PM|#
We won't get anything from the Dems either but we need to
get away from the GOP.
I think that's exactly right. The libertarians would be nuts to be
loyal members of either party's coalition, as they were during the
Fusionist anti-New Deal era the culminated in Reagan's
victory.
You'd be much better off aspiring to be the third party in a
two-and-a-half party system, like the LibDems in Britain. The new
swing voters, now that the Reagan Democrats are Bush
Republicans.
It will be harder than in England, due to our winner-take-all
system, but with the polarization of American politics over the
past decade, the middle is a lot smaller, and a committed electoral
minority of even modest size can play a meaningful role.
|5.2.08 @ 3:31PM|#
Grover is a scam artist. If he really believed anything he claims to stand for he would have run away from Bush Republicans long ago. Instead, he feathered his own nest with Abramoff's dirty money. I guess the GOP base doesn't pay a lick of attention to what their movement actually does, only the lip service they get paid.
Christopher Monnier|5.2.08 @ 3:34PM|#
The new political movement that now controls much of the
Republican party is one of Americans who simply wish to be left
alone by the government.
I didn't know Ron Paul "controlled much of the Republican
party."
kinnath|5.2.08 @ 3:35PM|#
You'd be much better off aspiring to be the third party in a
two-and-a-half party system, like the LibDems in Britain. The new
swing voters, now that the Reagan Democrats are Bush
Republicans.
I disagree with you on a large number of topics, but you have
always had a very clear and accurate view on the dynamics of the
various parties in the US.
Meaning, I absolutely agree with you on this point ;-)
e|5.2.08 @ 3:43PM|#
The operative word in "Leave Us Alone Coalition" is
"Us."
Leave Us Alone, oh yeah, and keep the tax dollars flowing in our
direction.
The rich part of the Republican party gets the sweet defense
contracts.
The poor part gets jobs in the Prison- and Military-Industrial
complex.
It's all good!
ed|5.2.08 @ 3:47PM|#
They are not asking the government for others'
money
That's funny. I could swear there are a few Republican farmers.
|5.2.08 @ 3:50PM|#
kinnath,
I try not to let my partisan preferences interfere with my
understanding of the horse race.
I could have told you all that the Democratic Party is the natural
home for libertarians, but that's not how I roll.
kinnath|5.2.08 @ 3:54PM|#
I try not to let my partisan preferences interfere with my
understanding of the horse race.
Your analysis of the race has always been interesting and
useful.
Neil|5.2.08 @ 4:09PM|#
There are rumors that Norquist converted to Islam,
actually.
When he was asked if he did to marry his wife he said that was a
"too personal" question and didn't give a straight answer.
Neil|5.2.08 @ 4:10PM|#
Read about that here:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={7AC5AB9D-FD67-4C7A-8E73-920D68945F3D}
|5.2.08 @ 4:10PM|#
Do the Reason Foundation's main funders demand that Reason associate itself with people like Norquist? I can't imagine any other reason why the Reason staff would find themselves in the same room with such a deceitful prick.
|5.2.08 @ 4:12PM|#
He lost me with the first sentence.
joe got off to a good start, but lost me with this one:
I could have told you all that the Democratic Party is the
natural home for libertarians,
Except for the vast majority of the Democratic Party platform, and
the sizable chunk of its membership, that are unalterably hostile
to libertarian philosophy, it would be a great home for
libertarians!
Episiarch|5.2.08 @ 4:15PM|#
RC, joe was saying that he could have said that, but
didn't, because it wouldn't be true.
In other words, joe was saying he is too honest to lie like that
;-)
|5.2.08 @ 4:22PM|#
The members of the coalition don't have gay sex. They aren't
Muslims. They don't think the government would spy on or single out
for surveillance people like them.
Joe did not watch the video where the Author said his wife is a
Muslim.
|5.2.08 @ 4:25PM|#
The modern Republican party is a coalition of groups and tendencies created during the political life of Ronald Reagan, based on principle rather than region and history. The new political movement that now controls much of the Republican party is one of Americans who simply wish to be left alone by the government. They are not asking the government for others' money, time, or attention. Rather, they want to be free to own a gun, homeschool their children, pray, invest their money, and control their own destiny.
That's as far as I got; I hope this book is catalogued as "Humorous
Fiction."
|5.2.08 @ 4:26PM|#
There isn't a trace of that left in the GOP. It hasn't been
seen in this millennium.
I saw it from jan 2001 to sept 2001
|5.2.08 @ 4:32PM|#
The association (explicit or otherwise) of libertarians with
Republicans is harming libertarians and the ideas for which they
stand.
Harming maybe...but association with the Democrats would kill it
dead.
By the way Ron Paul ran on the GOP ticket and he is the best thing
to happen to libertarians in like 20 years.
TallDave|5.2.08 @ 4:33PM|#
They are the Leave Us Alone coalition, at the heart of the
center-right, and Grover Norquist argues that it will grow in power
and size during the next generation.
We can only hope. A lot of righties are reading people like Glenn
Reynolds now.
Really, the only anti-libertarians on the right are the victims of
ignorance. If you can get them to look at some statistics or read
Mike Gray's books, they start to have real doubts about the War on
Drugs and other unconstitutional extensions of government
authority. Libertarianism is a natural extension of Hayek and
Milton economic theory.
The members of the coalition don't have gay sex.
Sure they do.
They aren't Muslims. They don't think the government would spy
on or single out for surveillance people like them.
I work with quite a few Muslim Republicans. You know what their
reaction is when you ask them if they're worried about being
singled out? "Why would they? I'm not planning to blow anything
up." They're more concerned with how much of their income the
government wants to seize.
TallDave|5.2.08 @ 4:35PM|#
By the way Ron Paul ran on the GOP ticket and he is the best
thing to happen to libertarians in like 20 years.
Yeah, the GOP needs to realize there is a tremendous amount of
energy there, and make them more part of the process.
|5.2.08 @ 4:38PM|#
The new political movement that now controls much of the
Republican party is one of Americans who simply wish to be left
alone by the government.
Bull shit! BULL SHIT!!
BULL FUCKING SHIT!!!
Only problem with that is the reality that McCain is running at
full speed trying to be the "leave you alone" candidate.
You can argue that he won't make it or that he won't act that way
once elected...but he is the party now and he is going after that
vote...to deny it is be delusional.
|5.2.08 @ 4:44PM|#
I meant, the people who make up this Republican coalition aren't
Muslims, or any other religious minority.
Not Norquist.
|5.2.08 @ 4:46PM|#
I meant, the people who make up this Republican coalition
aren't Muslims, or any other religious minority.
Isn't an impossible thing for a minority to make up a
coalition?
DannyK|5.2.08 @ 4:48PM|#
I work with quite a few Muslim Republicans. You know what their
reaction is when you ask them if they're worried about being
singled out? "Why would they? I'm not planning to blow anything
up." They're more concerned with how much of their income the
government wants to seize.
"Only criminals have anything to fear from a Police State." It's
always nice to see one of the classics in action.
|5.2.08 @ 4:53PM|#
Isn't an impossible thing for a minority to make up a
coalition?
No, joshua, it is not. It is quite possible for members of a
minority to be part of a coalition. For example, African-Americans
were part of the Democratic coalition in the 30s-present.
It is also possible for a coalition to be a minority coalition,
like the anti-New Deal coalition of the 30s and 40s.
Sean Scallon|5.2.08 @ 4:58PM|#
"The modern Republican party is a coalition of groups and
tendencies created during the political life of Ronald Reagan,
based on principle rather than region and history. The new
political movement that now controls much of the Republican party
is one of Americans who simply wish to be left alone by the
government. They are not asking the government for others' money,
time, or attention. Rather, they want to be free to own a gun,
homeschool their children, pray, invest their money, and control
their own destiny."
Unfortunately this is not true and nobody believes that its true
except for political operatives like Mr. Norquist (a former College
Republican flunkie), who continue to sabotage the "Leave Us Alone"
coalition by insisting it has to subvert its larger goals within
the GOP.
Mr. Norquist has done a very good job of steering such a coalition
into a shotgun wedding with a political party that has no interest
in leaving anybody alone. Fortunately after eight years of George
Bush II we're seeing through Norquist political games and rejecting
them. You can vote for McCain like the good little Republican that
your are Mr. Norquist. Those who are not jellyfish like you will
look elsewhere.
TallDave|5.2.08 @ 4:58PM|#
I meant, the people who make up this Republican coalition
aren't Muslims, or any other religious minority.
Obviously you've never heard of Utah.
|5.2.08 @ 4:59PM|#
Considering Bush has increased non-military discretionary
spending by more than any other president since FDR, he was bad
from day 1. Wasn't the plan for government money going to religious
charities an idea from day 1?
By the way Ron Paul ran on the GOP ticket and he is the best
thing to happen to libertarians in like 20 years.
Right, because it taught libertarians that we're not welcome in the
tent. The ridicule that Paul got from Fox, the other candidates and
most mainstream Republicans.
Joe did not watch the video where the Author said his wife is a
Muslim.
Yeah and because he's buddy buddy with the administration, he
doesn't have to worry about her getting arrested. The Saudis are
Muslim and the administration has no problem licking their
assholes. It's the Joe Schmoe Muslims that aren't politically
connected or sitting on billions of barrels of oil that have
something to fear.
Gilbert Martin|5.2.08 @ 5:07PM|#
"I don't know whether he's lying or self-deluded, but guys like
Norquist are THE REASON that this libertarian-at-heart voted
Democratic for years."
"Libertarian at heart" eh?
Doesn't sound like to me.
The liberal Democrats have done far more to restrict real-world
freedoms of all sorts with a much greater magnitude on people's
lives than the Republicans have.
They are the parents of the welfare state with massive wealth
redistribution in programs like social security, medicare,
medicaid, etc. They are the ones who have initiated enormous
infringements on freedom of contract and private property rights -
far more than the Republicans.
As opposed to banning gay marriage or wanting to ban abortions and
things of that sort? Far fewer people are impacted by those things
wheras the liberal Democrats socialist mandates effect virtually
everyone in a significant economic way.
TallDave|5.2.08 @ 5:11PM|#
Yeah and because he's buddy buddy with the administration,
he doesn't have to worry about her getting arrested.
Right, because the police just go around randomly arresting Muslims
for no reason (after, of course, checking the special buddy-buddy
exemption list).
|5.2.08 @ 5:17PM|#
For example, African-Americans were part of the Democratic
coalition in the 30s-present.
How did the Dixiecrats get the black vote again?
Fluffy|5.2.08 @ 5:19PM|#
More like, "Only the paranoid need to fear nonexistent
persecution."
The surveillance tools and prosecutorial enhancements employed by
the Bush administration against Muslims will also eventually be
routinely employed against people who defy our unjust gun laws,
drug laws, tax laws, currency laws, etc.
Always remember that, "You only need to worry if you have done
something wrong" and "You only need to worry if you have done
something illegal" are different statements. Fundamentally.
I think it should be quite obvious that one reason the balance
between the individual and the state has held up relatively well in
our system is because even when the state overstepped its rightful
bounds it was always inhibited in enforcement of its corrupt laws
by the limits of due process, by the difficulty of keeping the
entire citizenry under observation, by procedural and
Constitutional obstacles to surveillance, etc. Prohibition failed,
for example, largely due to the fact that it was wildly impractical
to actually enforce, and that impracticality punished the state
year after year until it gave up.
I oppose the surveillance state precisely because I want to
maintain a sphere of activity where the citizenry can defy the
state by using our various Constitutional protections to frustrate
the enforcement of nanny state bullshit.
[Standard disclaimer: this is, of course, in addition to all the
OTHER reasons I oppose it, which we discuss at great length here
all the time].
Brandybuck|5.2.08 @ 5:20PM|#
Of course people hate Republicans, because all they know about
Republicans is what they hear from the media. But the truth is much
different than the myth. The leadership may be a bunch of
whackjobs, but the rank and file still want small limited
government.
When I go to the local conservative forum, I run across all sorts
of obnoxious warmongering big-government jerks. But surprise
surprise, they are nowhere to be found when I go to the local
Republican party meetings. The decibel volume of the neocons and
theocons should not be interpreted as meaning they're the majority
in the party. Not all Republicans are libertarian leaning, but
perhaps a third are. And another third are classic
Buckleyite/Kirkian conservatives.
It's a far better base to start from than the Democratic Party,
which still worships the state as its personal savior.
Fluffy|5.2.08 @ 5:23PM|#
Gilbert,
Back that shit up right now.
When John McCain comes out for the abolishment of social security
and medicare, get back to me.
If we have two parties that BOTH AGREE that the welfare state
should exist, but one party also wants to flirt with theocracy and
torture people for shits and giggles, that party has no grounds for
pointing at their opposite and saying, "You libertarians should
really be worried about that other guy."
TallDave|5.2.08 @ 5:25PM|#
The surveillance tools and prosecutorial enhancements
employed by the Bush administration against Muslims
It's not being employed against "Muslims," it's being employed
against suspected terrorists of whatever religion.
will also eventually be routinely employed against people who
defy our unjust gun laws, drug laws, tax laws, currency laws,
etc.
Unlikely. It didn't happen with the internment of the Japanese or
the other wartime measures of the FDR administration, such as mass
arrests of war protestors, wiretapping of the media, or summary
execution of spies. Truman tried to seize the steel mills and the
SCOTUS struck it down, and they'll do the same to any other powers
that Constitutionally can only be directed against foreign
enemies.
TallDave|5.2.08 @ 5:26PM|#
but one party also wants to flirt with theocracy and torture
people for shits and giggles
That would be a real problem if it actually existed, as opposed to
a paranoid delusion.
|5.2.08 @ 5:30PM|#
torture people for shits and
giggles
I thought they tortured terrorists to get
information to prevent attacks.
Gilbert Martin|5.2.08 @ 5:38PM|#
"If we have two parties that BOTH AGREE that the welfare state
should exist,"
Which party do you think created the welfare state in the first
place?
FDR wasn't a Republican.
Too many Republicans have become content to become tax collectors
for the welfare state but it is primarily Democrats that created it
and continually push for it's expansion.
Yes I know Bush created the prescription drug program - I said
primarily. And the Democrats only complaint about THAT was that it
wasn't an even bigger giveaway.
TallDave|5.2.08 @ 5:38PM|#
The liberal Democrats have done far more to restrict
real-world freedoms of all sorts with a much greater magnitude on
people's lives than the Republicans have.
Yeah, that's the real tragedy of these days for right-libertarians.
While the press is all a-lather about
Gitmo and the waterboarding of three senior Al Qaeda, laws are
quietly passed that don't let you smoke in your own home, or even
take your home away for "economic development."
Gilbert Martin|5.2.08 @ 5:51PM|#
"Yeah, that's the real tragedy of these days for
right-libertarians. While the press is all a-lather about Gitmo and
the waterboarding of three senior Al Qaeda, laws are quietly passed
that don't let you smoke in your own home, or even take your home
away for "economic development."
Yeah - that and the squawking about "spying on citizens" via
listening to international phone calls of suspected terrorists - as
if this was some massive intrustion on citizens lives.
Let's see now, which has a greater impact on my life, the remote
possiblity that some government agency might be listening to
something I say on the phone if I ever happen to make an
international phone call or the absolute certainty that my material
wealth and standard of living have been significantly impacted by
having to pay social security, medicare and income taxes to finance
all sorts of giveaway programs to other people. I (and most middle
class and up people) would most certainly be able to retire years
eariler with a much higher income level in retirement if I'd been
able to save and invest all that money for myself.
DannyK|5.2.08 @ 5:51PM|#
More like, "Only the paranoid need to fear nonexistent
persecution."
Dude, they suspended the 4th Amendment for purposes of
combating domestic terrorism. In a secret order that has
never been revealed, and that we only know of because of a footnote
in another secret order that was recently declassified. Since it's
secret, nobody knows how this actually worked, or if this order is
still operative. The fourth friggin' Amendment!
DannyK|5.2.08 @ 5:53PM|#
P.S.:
Gilbert and TallDave -- I can't tell if you're being serious or
sarcastic. Y'all are spooky.
charlie|5.2.08 @ 5:57PM|#
I'm glad to see Reason is giving attention to people we can't see every day on places like CNN, Fox News, etc. Bravo.
|5.2.08 @ 5:57PM|#
I meant, the people who make up this Republican coalition
aren't Muslims, or any other religious minority.
Mormons, perhaps?
|5.2.08 @ 5:57PM|#
It's not being employed against "Muslims," it's being
employed against suspected terrorists of whatever
religion.
Funny, when the terrorists were white Christians in the middle of
America, the Republicans were quite principled about civil
liberties.
The leadership may be a bunch of whackjobs, but the rank and
file still want small limited government.
Except the rank and file aren't running, it's the whackjobs. And
they have no problem voting for the warmongering big government
jerks. They get no sympathy from me.
|5.2.08 @ 6:02PM|#
Dude, they suspended the 4th Amendment for purposes of
combating domestic terrorism.
As opposed to the democrats who suspended it and just about every
other amendment for zoning regulations.
Hell i don't agree with suspending the 4th but at least they had a
reason other then the state knows what best color to paint your
house.
Brandybuck|5.2.08 @ 6:06PM|#
The difference between Democrats and Republicans, is that Democrats want to make government bigger while Republicans want to stop government from getting bigger. The problem with this two party system is that there's no room for anyone who wants to make government smaller.
|5.2.08 @ 6:10PM|#
As opposed to the democrats who suspended it and just about
every other amendment for zoning regulations.
Hell i don't agree with suspending the 4th but at least they had a
reason other then the state knows what best color to paint your
house.
Link please?
The state can't tell you what color to paint your house. Those are
done by housing associations, which are private
organizations. It's still bullshit, but totally cool. Besides, how
is the color of your house protected by the 4th Amendment? I can
see the 1st, but the 4th?
|5.2.08 @ 6:10PM|#
Funny, when the terrorists were white Christians in the
middle of America, the Republicans were quite principled about
civil liberties.
What the hell are you talking about?
you know i heard republicans only eat non-Christian babies
also.
|5.2.08 @ 6:18PM|#
Remember when the Clinton administration was cracking down on
militias after OK City bombing? Same with their crackdown on
websites that advocated assassinating abortion doctors. The
Republicans were quite keen on civil liberties back then.
I somehow missed the Bush administration torturing abortion clinic
bombers and sending them to Gitmo.
|5.2.08 @ 6:18PM|#
The state can't tell you what color to paint your
house.
You would think, you would also think the state could not tell you
where to smoke on private property or if you can buy food with
transfat, or if you can enter into a contract as to what sort of
health care insurance you want, or tell you what kind of light
bulbs to use...you would think the State would stay out of such
things and that the constitution would prevent the state from
telling you what you can do in such affairs...you would think but
you would be dead wrong....and it is the Democrats and the left who
took those rights from you.
|5.2.08 @ 6:39PM|#
Based on all these comments, I've never been prouder to be a
Reasonoid. Like Brian24, it's the Grovers of the world that made me
go left early on. It is only since I've realized that those people
want to control everything just as much that I've gone
libertarian.
Because I'm for people being able to own a gun (or not), homeschool
their children (or not have them in the first place), pray (or, uh,
not), invest their money (or give it all to Act Up), control their
own destiny, ingest whatever substances they choose into their
body, sodomize their partners in a variety of interesting ways,
read dirty books, look at dirty pictures, and make whatever art
they feel like making.
Do I have a place in you organization, Grover?
|5.2.08 @ 9:24PM|#
ingest whatever substances they choose into their
body
This is not directed at you specifically, but at libertarians who
rail against the WOD daily:
The problem with that is that drug users don't just use at home,
they go out into public and reak havoc in a variety of ways that
affect OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS. I could be for drug legalization if
it were in conjunction with laws making public intoxication
(particularly driving and including alcohol) punishable by harsh
manditory jail time. I have a feeling this would result in the same
number of people in jail as the current system.
|5.2.08 @ 9:34PM|#
How did the Dixiecrats get the black vote again?
joshua, you don't know what the word coalition means, do you?
RC, TallDave, good point about the Official Minority of the
Republican Party, Mormons. Right you are.
Metal Messiah|5.2.08 @ 9:40PM|#
"The operative word in "Leave Us Alone Coalition" is
"Us."
That's the problem with the conservative idea of "small
government."
They don't want a bunch of liberals telling them what to do and how
to live, but they sure want to tell all of those liberals what to
do and how to live.
It's those "leave us alone" people who have given us the pro-life
movement, the anti-gay movement, the war on drugs, the war on
terror, the war on pornography, increased police powers at all
levels of government, sex offender registries, SWAT raids on
"suspected" drug users...
Gilbert Martin|5.2.08 @ 11:24PM|#
"Dude, they suspended the 4th Amendment for purposes of
combating domestic terrorism"
Whereas the liberals have suspended the 10th Amendment, the 2nd
Amendment and 5th Amendment private property rights for purposes of
socialism - starting about 70 years ago and continuing ever
since.
|5.2.08 @ 11:40PM|#
joshua, you don't know what the word coalition means, do
you?
Sure i do....i also know the black vote was not part of the
democrat coalition in the 1930's.
You know back when the dixicrats put a far more repressive and
brutal government over american blacks then the republicans ever
dreamed of.
Bob Goodman|5.3.08 @ 12:51AM|#
I'm for people being able to own a gun (or not), homeschool their children (or not have them in the first place), pray (or, uh, not), invest their money (or give it all to Act Up), control their own destiny, ingest whatever substances they choose into their body, sodomize their partners in a variety of interesting ways, read dirty books, look at dirty pictures, and make whatever art they feel like making.
Do I have a place in you organization, Grover?
If there were more like you, there would be. He explained to me
years ago that he tried working with people whose hobby horse was
one of the hippie-ish (for lack of a better word) kind, but that
they didn't coalit (my word) well with the others. That is, the
Leave Us Alone Coalition would scratch their backs, but they
wouldn't lift a finger to help the existing groups in the Leave Us
Alone Coalition, or even each other, and would tend more to divide
than to unite their interests.
Basically, among single interest constituents as
in his old fax network, those whose interests are more on the
"right" tend to be more libertarian and of a mind to help each
other, while those whose interests lie on the "left" tend to be
more parochial and selfish.
And I trust that was real experience talking, for what reason would
he have to lie about it? Why would he choose to cut off an avenue
for the Leave Us Alone Coalition if he could broaden it? It doesn't
seem he'd have anything to gain by forgoing that route, and he
would gain by appearing less partisan.
Has anyone succeeded in producing actual
results in terms of public policy (which in the case of
Norquist's fax network consisted mostly of stopping bad changes
rather than advancing good ones) with a coalition that included the
dope-smokin' with the gun-totin', the Bible-thumpin' with the
sheep-humpin'? If not, don't criticize Norquist for his
successes.
|5.3.08 @ 12:57PM|#
Freedom to pray? Are you shitting me? Has anyone ever introduced serious legislation that would restrict one's right to pray? Is he really still beating that "secular agenda" dead horse. Come up with a new boogeyman or, stop wasting my time.
Heinrick|5.3.08 @ 4:38PM|#
"The leadership may be a bunch of whackjobs, but the rank and
file still want small limited government."
You are as full of shit as Grover.
|5.3.08 @ 6:23PM|#
The state can't tell you what color to paint your
house.
You would think, you would also think the state could not tell you
where to smoke on private property or if you can buy food with
transfat, or if you can enter into a contract as to what sort of
health care insurance you want, or tell you what kind of light
bulbs to use.
joshua,
You provided me no evidence proving your assertion, which I asked
for. If you think conservatives don't have their hobbyhorses that
restrict freedom, you're dead wrong. They want to tell you who you
can have sex with, what you can watch on tv and plenty also support
smoking bans. Famously liberal Montana, Utah, Arizona and New
Mexico all have smoking bans.
joe|5.3.08 @ 6:26PM|#
Sure i do....i also know the black vote was not part of the democrat coalition in the 1930's.
joe|5.3.08 @ 6:30PM|#
You "know" a lot of things, Joshua.
They just don't ever actually turn out to be true.
Sort of like this.
Realignment
Under the direction of James A. Farley the 1932 election brought
about a major realignment in political party affiliation, and is
widely considered to be a realigning election, though some scholars
point to the off-year election of 1934. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
set up his New Deal and under Farley's stewardship was able to
forge a coalition of Big City machines, labor unions, liberals,
ethnic and racial minorities (especially Catholics, Jews and
African Americans,) and Southern
whites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal_coalition
Do you think that, at some point, you're going to tire of spouting
off in an ignorant manner, insulting me, and getting your ass
handed to you? That really does seem to make up the majority of
your presence on this site, in case you haven't noticed.
No, no, you should totally keep it up. If I write something you
don't like to hear, you should just assume it's untrue, and call me
out. Just keep doing that.
|5.4.08 @ 12:53PM|#
Metal Messiah et al,
It would be helpful to the cause of individual liberty if all of
you would move beyond the rhetoric and actually look at the actions
of democrat politicians.
If you did that you would find the democrats support / push almost
every single one of social restrictions the conservatives do.
Tipper and Al Gore and the PMRC is a particularly good example of
this for the metal messiahs in the crowd.
On top of this the democrats add a consistent desire to restrict
additional personal and economic freedoms in areas were the
republicans would be content to leave people alone.
It will be difficult to improve individual freedom until activists
recognize both parties are eroding freedom and start to hold both
parties responsible for it.
|5.5.08 @ 10:02AM|#
move beyond the rhetoric and actually look at the actions of
democrat politicians
Genuis!
In a sentence about moving past the rhetoric, he can't help but use
the GOP rhetorical trick of mis-stating the party's name.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245