The Week: 'Mick Mulvaney- Says Nobody Cares About The Deficit: He Used To Care A lot'

Source:The Week- White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. 

"Republicans knew someone would notice if President Trump didn't mention the deficit in his Tuesday State of the Union. Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney didn't agree.

When Trump previewed his speech for 20 Republican supporters on Monday, Mulvaney argued that the ballooning deficit didn't need to be included because "nobody cares" about it, ABC News reports. That's not what Mulvaney would've said in his congressional days.

Before Trump tapped him to direct the Office of Management and Budget, Mulvaney was a congressman from South Carolina. And when he campaigned to earn that spot over Democratic incumbent and House Budget Committee Chair John Spratt, he made deficit reduction his "central policy concern," Politico's Jake Sherman recalls. He continued to complain about the national debt and deficit in his budget chair confirmation hearing in January 2017, but showed a shift that October when the Republican Tax Cuts and Jobs Act rolled around.

Ahead of its passage, the Congressional Budget Office concluded the GOP tax overhaul would add $1.46 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. Another report concluded that, with an additional round of cuts proposed but not passed the next year, the total could reach $3.2 trillion. Yet Mulvaney defended the GOP's tax reform proposal all the way, telling Fox News in October 2017 that America needed "new deficits" to grow the economy. That earned Mulvaney a dreaded question from host Chris Wallace: "You were a deficit hawk. What happened, sir?"

Source:The Week 

"It wasn't ok when President Obama's government spending was causing budget deficits, but White House budget director Mick Mulvaney seems to accept deficits now that President Trump's proposed tax cuts might cause them."

Source:CNN- How times have changed 

From CNN

The title of this piece is very important, because before Mick Mulvaney became White House Chief of Staff and even before he was Director of Management and Budget at the White House, he was a U.S Representative from South Carolina and served on the House Budget Committee. It gets  even better than this, because he was part of the 2010 Tea Party House freshman class of 62 new House Republicans that won back the House for Republicans that year.

It gets even better than that, because back then when we had a 1 trillion dollar budget deficit with a Democratic President, House Republicans especially, but the Republican Party as a whole saw the national debt and deficits as big of threats to the United States as they see the People's Republic of China, or the Islamic Republic of Iran, a nuclear Communist Korea. They talked about the dangers of the national debt and saw them as threats to their children and grandchildren's future with all the interest that they would have to pay on the national debt.

Back in the good ole days ( pre-President Donald Trump ) and just the first few years of this decade, Republicans especially House Republicans lead by Minority Leader and later Speaker John Boehner were serious deficit hawks. They made the Committee For a Responsible Budget ( an inside Washington reference ) proud everyday when they talked about the debt and deficit. But there's a catch to all of this, because back then there was a Democratic President named Barack Obama, who the Tea Party viewed as a tax and spend, Un-American Socialist who was ruining their 1950s Ozzie and Harriet America. ( And whether that was racial or not, you be the judge for yourself )

And go up to 2017 and what has changed? Replace a Progressive Democratic President named Barack Obama with a right-wing cultural warrior champion Nationalist President named Donald Trump. And give him a Republican Congress with the House and Senate ( for you American U.S. Government students ) and you now have a Republican President who calls himself the King of Debt. Who appoints a Secretary of Treasury Steve Mnuchin who actually says that deficits don't matter. And a Republican House led by Speaker Paul Ryan who was probably the biggest deficit hawk at least as far as rhetoric during the Obama Administration, especially when he chaired the House Budget Committee, who is only concern with keeping his majority and passing enough legislation ( regardless of how it's paid for ) to keep his majority.

To know that the Tea Party campaign against the national debit and deficit was nothing more than a fraud that was as big as Enron, ( from back in the day ) go back to what they were saying about those issues then when Mick Mulvaney was Republican Mick Mulvaney and go up today with Donald Trump leading the Republican Party and what he and they say about the debt and deficit today. They claimed to care about those fiscal issues when there was a Democratic President and don't give a damn ( to be nice ) about those issues today. But only because now we have a Republican President who doesn't care about those issues. As well as a spineless House and Senate Republican caucus, who doesn't care about those issues either 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

Vanity Fair: Opinion- S.E. Cupp: 'The Conservative Coma'

Source:Vanity Fair- Take America back to the 1950s?

Source:Vanity Fair: Opinion- S.E. Cupp: The Conservative Coma

When I think of the Grand Ole Party ( and saying that with a straight face anymore is getting very difficult ) I think of a Conservative Republican Party that was hawkish when it came to not just Communists and communism, but authoritarians and authoritarianism in general. That actually believed deficits matter. ( Which night sound crazy in the Trumpian Republican Party today ) That actually believed not only in entitlement reform, but that it was necessary. That if Republicans as a party are going to believe in and support programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that they should all be on sound fiscal footing and not blow up the deficit.

It was a party that believed that race, ethnicity, and gender didn't matter. Which why it supported the civil rights laws of the 1960s while opposing affirmative action in the 1970s, because the GOP believed that people shouldn't be promoted, demoted, empowered or denied simply because of their race, ethnicity or religion. A party that not only believed in immigration, but that anyone regardless of what country or region of the world, regardless of their race or ethnicity should be allowed to come to America legally if they work hard and contribute to America and obey our laws.

A party that was strong on defense, but didn't believe America shouldn't try to police the world and try force our values on other countries and tell them this is how they should govern themselves. For the most part this Republican value is still in place with the Neoconservatives thanks to the Iraq War losing almost all influence on Republican foreign and national security policy. A party that still believed in limited government even with the Christian-Right becoming a force in the party, but that still believed in that Barry Goldwater line that said he didn't want big government in our wallets, bedrooms, boardrooms, or classrooms.

That was the Republican Party that I grew up. I come from a Democratic family, but that's what the Republican Party use to be and what the Republican Party was when I grew up. And expect for the national debt and deficits, President Ronald Reagan believed in most if not all of those values. He did have his own big government issues with the national debt, deficits, and his expansion of the War on Drugs in the 1980s, but basically he represented and lead what was the Grand Ole Party very well in the 1980s. This is not the Republican Party today and I when I think of RINOS,  ( Republicans in name only ) I believe in so-called Republicans who don't even really believe in the concept of a republic and instead want to create a fundamentalist Christian society where their religious values are not only dominant, but become official government policy.

The GOP is not dead. You still have the S.E. Cupp's of the world, as well as Republicans like Margaret Hoover, Amanda Carpenter, Tara Setmeyer, Bill Kristol, and a few others at CNN. They're still some GOP Republicans in Congress like outgoing Senator's Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, outgoing Speaker Paul Ryan, incoming Senator Mitt Romney once he takes his Senate seat in the next Congress. But the Republican Party today is now the Donald Trump Nationalist Party. That puts groups of Americans against each other and no longer preaches about America being the city on a shining hill. And instead preaches that, "you're either with us or against us." Meaning you either support President Donald Trump, or you're Un-American and a RINO.

The Republican or Nationalist or RINO Party ( depending on how you want to label the modern Republican Party ) is now the party that represents the 1950s that was reborn in this century, but come from the 1950s culturally and ideologically. Where women's place in the world is at home, African-Americans and other non-Anglo-Saxons are second-class citizens if citizens at all. Gays are either locked in the closet, or locked in prison or some mental institution.

Today's so-called Republican party is really now an anti-conservative party, because they now believe character and morality doesn't matter just as long as you either serve, back, or defend President Donald Trump and the people who support the President. And that instead of defending and supporting the status quo and and conserving our individual rights which is what Conservatives are supposed to support, they now want to blow up the system and establishment and create a society and establishment that supports them and what they being the Trump Nationalist movement supports and believes in.

If you read Joshua Green's The Devil's Bargain, he reports and argues that the Republican Party Leadership and base got in bed with Donald Trump in 2015-16, because even though they were aware of all of Donald Trump's faults when it came to his lack of character and civility, that if he became President with a Republican Congress and Judiciary that they would get from a President Trump the things that they've been fighting for and wanted ever since Barack Obama became President. Things like deregulation, tax cuts, judicial appointments, a larger defense budget, etc. And that every time President Trump would do something that's unconventional ( to be kind ) or irresponsible, reckless, anti-conservative like appeasing dictators, they would just chalk it up to Donald Trump not being a conventional politician and new to Washington. Which is exactly what' we've seen the last two years with Donald Trump as President.

The GOP is not dead, but they're not unfortunately now a small faction of the Republican Party. The never-trumpers are what left of the Grand Ole Party. They're the Republicans ( not RINOS ) who believe that deficits and the national debt actually do matter, expect for perhaps Bill Kristol who is a Neoconservative. They don't just support entitlement reform, but believe it's necessary. They support legal immigration and believe it benefits the country and aren't worried about America losing it's European culture because they don't believe one race or ethnicity is superior to any other. They by enlarge don't want big government in our economic or personal affairs. I've argued for a while now that the Republican Party is no longer a conservative party, but  party with a conservative faction and the Donald Trump experiment and his movement make that argument for me perfectly.

Source:CNN: State of The Union- S.E. Cupp: Conservative Movement is in a Coma - CNN political analyst S.E. Cupp 

Economic Policy Journal: Veronique De Rugy- 'Stop Calling The GOP The Party of Small Government'

Source:MSNBC- Donald Trump's GOP.

"There was a time when GOP lawmakers called for the elimination of entire federal agencies. Today, milquetoast promises to pursue smaller government are followed by votes for ever bigger government."

Source:Economic Policy Journal

"David Stockman- Spend, Cut & Borrow: The GOP is Heading to Fiscal Calamity"

Source: Special Reports- Former Reagan Administration OMB Director David Stockman.

Listening to Republicans today talk about the need for limited government and limiting the size as well as growth of government, is like talking and listening to a 400 pound man ( perhaps in New Jersey, to use Donald Trump's reference ) talk about the need for diet and exercise. It's hard to listen to it with a straight face, because they're only speaking from bad experience. Sort of like hearing a parent tell their kids not to do exactly what they did when they were the exact same sage. Like staying out late, eating too much junk food, playing video games, etc.

Source: Democratic Underground- The King of Debt Donald Trump 

When I want to hear advice, I want to hear advice from someone who knows what they're talking about. I know, that sounds crazy and perhaps next you might say that I would only jump out of an airplane with a parachute or when I'm completely drunk, but I want to hear advice from people who know what they're doing. Who can say, "you should look at doing this, because this is what I did and it worked out very well from me." Instead of someone saying, "don't screw up like me. Trust me, it doesn't work because that's exactly what I did. "

Source: The Nation Magazine- Vice President Mike Pence & the House GOP Leadership: Fiscal responsibility, LOL!

The Republican Party, is no more the party of limited government and fiscal responsibility, as they're the party of individual freedom and federalism. They believe in freedom for the individual, if that person lives like them and shares their same cultural and religious values. They're the party of federalism, if states and localities are doing exactly what they want them to do. This case with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and immigration, with so-called sanctuary cities is a great example of that. Marijuana where the Trump Administration, wants to interfere with state marijuana laws and say that the states can't have their own marijuana laws, is another example of that.

And perhaps more important than anything else because it affects our economy with things like interest rates and banking, the Republican Party is the party of fiscal responsibility, only when Democrats are in power and deficits are high. Once Republicans retake the White House again and have a Republican Congress as well, they act like fiscal responsibility is something they've never heard of. Or deficits and debt are no longer major concerns, because they're back in power and know how to manage those things. Or as Vice President Dick Cheney said back in 2003 on Meet The Press, "deficits don't matter." Or as Donald Trump has said, he's the king of debt and knows how to manage it.

This Republican Congress hasn't done much in how the year in a half that they've been in power. But they did manage to pass three big spending bill with big spending being the two key words. I guess Republican would be another key word as well, but they passed a gigantic federal budget, a gigantic spending bill with both of those bills only making the most obese person in the world happy with how they big and porky they are. With Congressional Republicans and the Trump Administration essentially saying that, "why should we be worried about the national debt and deficit, when we're not going to be the people who have to pay for it?" And of course the so-called tax reform bill, which is another way of saying borrow two-trillion-dollars to pay for tax cuts, so we can tell the Republican voters that we actually did something while we're in power.

Vice President Joe Biden, back in 2010 while he was campaigning for Congressional Democrats on the campaign trail, said in a speech, "that this is not your father's GOP." Meaning this is not the same Republican Party that he worked with in Congress as a Senator for 36 years, or the party he saw while growing up in the 1950s and 1960s. The Republican Party today is not even the Republican Party of 2010, 2011, 2012, that actually believed in fiscal responsibility. They're now the Donald Republican reality TV show party that only seems to be in the business of trying to stay in power. Where the only principal is winning elections and defeating Democrats. And as a result they by themselves are killing fiscal conservatism and fiscal responsibility. Which is a shame, because it means that everyone else gets to pay for borrow and spend big government.

AEI Ideas: James Pethokoukis: 'Ben Carson's Flat Tax Plan Represents Many of The Least Helpful Impulses in GOP Tax Policy'

Source:Bloomberg News- 2016 long shot Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson.

"Ben Carson has belatedly — his polling numbers have sharply declined the past two months — put out a big tax cut plan. Carson would, according to the Tax Foundation, “replace the federal income tax code with a modified Hall-Rabushka-style flat tax of 14.9 percent.” But let me clarify: For some people, it would be a big tax cut plan. The top 10% of households. For the bottom 90 percent, it would actually be a tax hike. As the WSJ’s Richard Rubin notes:

Poor households, which now get net refunds from the income tax system because of the child tax credit and earned-income tax credit, would no longer get those benefits. And the top 1% of households, which get a much larger share of their money from investments, would no longer pay any taxes on that portion of their income.

So Carson would cut taxes — on a static basis — by a massive $5.6 trillion. Yet most people would still pay more in taxes. Just let that sink in a moment. Go ahead, take two.

Now the Carson plan also includes a novel $100 per citizen minimum tax. (Skin in the game!) Here is my AEI colleague Ramesh Ponnuru on that neat little feature:

Carson justifies this minimum tax by saying it treats everyone in America as a “citizen owner” of the government. I don’t see how someone who gets $10,000 in federal benefits is in any significant way more of a “citizen owner” of his government if he pays a nominal $100 tax than if he doesn’t. ,,, Carson may be alluding to the political case many conservatives make for this kind of reform. On this argument, everyone needs to pay some income tax so that they understand that big government costs them money and so that they then vote in accordance with that understanding.

During his own presidential campaign, Bobby Jindal made this argument, although his plan raised taxes “only” on the bottom 40 percent of filers.

It seems to me that the assumptions about voter psychology behind this argument have to be that: a) many people vote based in large part on a calculation of the benefits they get and the taxes they pay; b) many of these calculating voters distinguish between payroll and income taxes, not counting the former toward their calculation; c) many of these calculating voters would not subtract the $100 from their benefits and see that they are still net “takers” from the federal government; and d) many of these calculating voters will decide to suspend their usual method of determining their vote for this presidential election, and vote for a candidate who is promising to raise their taxes and cut their benefits. These assumptions, in conjunction, seem unlikely.

I mean, I would imagine Carson is putting forward a policy that he thinks represents both sound economics and has some basic appeal to voters. But I am not sure telling someone that you are going to a) immediately lower their after-tax income in exchange for b) a future higher income based on theoretical economic models that c) suggest higher GDP growth by slashing high-end tax rates … well, I am not sure that sells. Oh, and even if you assume the higher GDP growth, the plan still loses $2.5 trillion. That Carson would offer such a plan — one that represents many of the least helpful impulses in GOP tax policy — certainly suggests an interesting take on the GOP voting base."

Source:AEI Ideas

"Chris Wallace tells Ben Carson: The rich 'make out like bandits' under your tax plan" 

Source:Raw Story- 2016 Republican Party presidential candidate Ben Carson, being interviewed by Fox News's Chris Wallace.

From Raw Story

During really the last six years or so of the tax cut and deficit reduction debate in Washington, people who call themselves Conservative Republicans, have argued that they wouldn’t support a tax increase, or a tax hike under any circumstances. 

The so-called fiscal cliff and the extension of the Bush tax cuts in late 2012 was part of the current Republican Party debate on tax policy. However, Representative Michele Bachmann (Republican, Minnesota) when she ran for president in 2011, (her campaign didn’t make it to 2012, or she ran for president in a non-presidential year) argued for increasing taxes on low-income workers. Adding an income tax to their payroll taxes. 

Ben Carson and others, now support a 15% flat tax that would be a fifty-percent tax increase on lower working class workers who currently pay 10% in federal income taxes before refunds and so-forth.

If you’re truly against tax hikes at any point, then you’re against any flat tax that raises taxes on anyone. Every flat tax that has ever been proposed has been both a lower and middle-income tax hike. I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who call them self even a fiscal, or economic conservative, when they support a flat tax. Because they’re supporting a lower and middle-income tax increase, but also on the people who American economy depends on the most to drive economic growth. 

You pass a lower-income tax on people and they’ll stop working and become completely dependent on public assistance, because they can’t afford your tax increase. We need to encourage these people to not only work, but further their education so they can get a good job and no longer be low-income. Not discourage them to work at all.

Keppler Speakers: Senator Bob Dole Shares Great Political Wit

Source:The Daily Review

Bob Dole, follows the oldest rule in the book, that he perhaps wrote himself, or had his good friend Strom Thurmond right for him. “Never take yourself too seriously.” The best rule for a politician, or any special interest servant, I mean public servant. Because there’s so much nonsense that goes on in Washington. Most people judge their finances in the thousands. Companies, in the thousands and millions, state and local government’s in the millions and to a certain extent hundreds of millions.

Not The U.S. Government in Washington. Millions of dollars to someone in Congress, is like a slam dunk to Lebron James. No big deal, something that he does several times in each game. The U.S. Government, deal in billions, hundreds of billions and even trillions everyday. There’s so much money for them to manage and the fact that Congress, anyway represents the people who send them there and are only as good as them, there’s no way they can manage all of it themselves.

I think politicians have to laugh at themselves, otherwise they would go crazy and end up back at the nut house they escaped from to run for Congress and get reelected in the first place. You’re always in the public eye even when you’re making your back room deals and voting on things you don’t want anyone especially your constituents to know about, because leaks get out. And people who work for you no longer feel they can hide what their boss is doing.

A public servant, is truly that at least in the sense that they work in the public, even if they work for their lobbyists. And in today’s internet age there’s only so much that they can hide from the public. So when they do crooked and stupid things, it gets out and they get reelected anyway, because their constituents are blind and didn’t bother to pay attention to what their senator, or representative was doing, or perhaps were drunk when they went into the voting booth. And voted for the wrong person by accident.

I believe what Bob Dole is talking about here is not only all the politicians in America that have had a great wit, but also making fun of a lot of things that he saw while he was in Congress. All the late night sessions because senators didn’t want to vote on things that their constituents would find out about. So they would vote when they thought the whole country was asleep. And even if Alaska and Hawaii found out about it, the thinking there was that they were too far away to do anything about it. There’s so much nonsense that goes on in Washington, Congress and the U.S. Government as a whole. You almost have to laugh at it, or deal with a horrible case of depression. And perhaps take up alcoholism to get through it.

POLITICO Magazine: Jonathan M. Katz- Roger Milliken: 'The Man Who Launched The GOP's Civil War'

Source:Politico- Roger Millikien, in 1964?

"The speaker of the House was singing last Friday. A reporter had just prodded John Boehner, a man never shy about showing his emotions, to reveal how he really felt walking away from 24 years in Congress and the highest-ranking Republican post in government, amid the fracturing of his party. He responded with a Disney tune: “Zip-a-dee-doo-dah,” he warbled, his gaze threatening to dissolve into tears. “Zip-a-dee-ay.” 

From POLITICO Magazine 

"Roger Milliken, a man famous for his leadership in the textile industry and his support of free trade and conservative politicians, died Thursday at the age of 95." 

From WYFF News

I've always seen the Republican Party as a conservative at least in the classical sense of a party that was made of classical Conservatives, or Conservative Libertarians, small l libertarians even like Barry Goldwater. Moderate more pragmatic Conservatives like Bob Dole and a progressive wing that is all, but gone in the GOP now with people like Nelson Rockefeller. 

And then add the Christian-Right that started coming over to the GOP in the late 1960s and has stayed ever since, as well as Neoconservatives who are beyond hawkish when it comes to foreign policy and national security. The Christian-Right they haven't gotten the message that its no longer 1955 and America is sixty-years older now. The Robert Taft/Barry Goldwater wing of the Republican Party has always been there.

The Republican Party just now has a hyper-partisan Far-Right that doesn't believe in governing and perhaps even government if it means working with Democrats especially a man that they hate in Barack Obama. 

As partisan as the 1990s was you still had Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott leading the House and Senate Republicans in Congress, who both had a very good working relationship with Democratic President Bill Clinton. And Senate Leader Lott's case, he had a good working relationship and even personal relationship with then Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle. That is all but gone now in the GOP, other than maybe Senate Leader Mitch McConnell who I believe wants to govern and get things done, just as long as his caucus will allow him to.

Other than the emergence of the Christian-Right and the Neoconservatives, I don't believe the GOP has changed a lot ideologically. What has changed has been their approach to politics and how they work in Congress. Where people who would backbenchers thirty-years ago like Representative Steve King and Senator Ted Cruz, are now seen as leaders in the Republican Party with real influence. 

Senator Cruz's influence seems to be dying now where Mitch McConnell no longer seems concern with him and what he might do. But you still have about sixty, ore more  Republicans in the House that can be the difference in whether or not bills get passed over there. Which is why Speaker John Boehner has gone over to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to pick up votes on bills that have to be passed. Like government funding bills and the debt ceiling.

I believe what has really changed about the Republican Party is that they're a lot more partisan. And because of the New Right they've moved further right, where fighting big government is no longer alway their biggest issue. But using government to influence even through force how Americans live their own lives. That sees personal freedom and even individualism as dangerous things now. Once you move away from Christianity, the 2nd Amendment and political advertising. 

And these changes are bad enough when you have a divided country politically with divided government, but you still have issues that need to be worked on and agreements that have to be made between the Republican Leadership and Democratic Leadership for the government to get its work done and do the things that we need it to do.

The Washington Post: Jennifer Rubin: John Kasich is The un-Trump

The Washington Post: Opinion: Jennifer Rubin: John Kasich is The un-Trump

Just to be clear, I wouldn’t vote for John Kasich for president perhaps on any circumstances. Unless there was some reason why only Republicans were running for president. But what I’ve seen from him so far looks like he’s the best the Republican Party has and is someone who they desperately need if they’re going to win Latinos back and win back the White House. The Republican Party, won’t win the White House back until they win Latinos, Asians, Jews and get closer to Democrats when it comes to women. They’re Anglo-Saxon Southern-Protestant rural base is dying off and they know that.

Governor Scott Walker, simply too far-right on social issues. Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, allowing for employers and other groups to deny gays access simply because they’re gay, no abortion under any circumstances, he’s flipped on immigration and is no longer in favor of a policy to deal with the 10-15 million illegal immigrants other than perhaps sending them home. So he’s basically the Rick Santorum of 2016 and would have a hard time winning outside of the Bible Belt and would have a hard time even winning his home state.

Donald Trump, is nothing more than a one man reality show and if he still looks like a contender and December, I’ll consider apologizing. Jeb Bush, doesn’t want to be his brother, or father and yet its hard to tell how he differs from G.W. at least on economic policy. He now says the Iraq War was a mistake, but blind people could see that. He doesn’t seem to know what he wants to be right now other than what he was in Florida as Governor. But not a lot of people know what kind of Governor he was. He might end up being a weaker frontrunner than Mitt Romney.

Marco Rubio, the younger Jeb Bush? He’s G.W. and Dick Cheney when it comes to foreign policy and national security. He hasn’t come out with much of an economic policy yet. On immigration, Senator Rubio, Governor Bush and Governor Kasich, are where the party needs to be to win back Latinos and probably Asians as well. But all three men are going to have to do better than that and offer a vision to win those groups back. But Kasich, is a little different. Blue-collar guy from Pennsylvania and Ohio. Nine-term U.S. Representative and two-term Governor of Ohio which is a swing state. One of the lead authors in Congress of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act.

John Kasich, has real Washington experience and real experience outside of Washington. As well as private sector experience that he had after he left Congress in 2001. He’s not a fan of same-sex marriage, but wouldn’t do anything to stop it and has said he’s even been to a gay wedding. This all coming from a center-right Republican. Republicans, have to win Ohio back, as well as breakthrough the Democratic lock on Asians and Latinos. They also need to win back blue-collar voters regardless of race, or ethnicity. Kasich, might be the only Republican who can do that. And if I’m Hillary Clinton, or Jeb Bush, Kasich would be the person I would be most concern about.

C-SPAN: Jeb Bush Presidential Campaign Announcement

Source: C-SPAN-

Source:The New Democrat

I doubt I’m the first one to have said this, but I’m still having a hard time seeing the differences between Jeb Bush and George W. Bush. Sure, Jeb is taller and has his father’s height. And he’s younger than George W. and has a Florida accent instead of a Texas accent. But once you get past the physical and characteristics, how are the two Bush brothers different at all. Its one thing to resemble a successful popular President, either physically, or when it comes to policy. That can probably help you and what you have to do is show people where you separate and become your own man, or women. But it’s another thing to resemble a President that isn’t very unpopular and not considered successful at all. And Jeb, is in the latter category.

The other thing that I picked up from this speech, which is something The Daily Beast covered yesterday, was Jeb talking about if we can get to four-percent economic growth, we can create nineteen-million jobs. Well, guess what Jeb, we did that four for four years in the 1990s as far as economic growth and under President Bill Clinton we created twenty-two-million jobs in the 1990s. So is Jeb going to talk like George W, but govern like Bill Clinton politically when it comes to economic policy? And the rest of this speech is really just for his audience and his followers. “Barack Obama, is taking American downhill and I’m the guy to get America moving again.” And everything he doesn’t like about President Obama.

I don’t know what Jeb accomplished in this speech. He already has the establishment business friendly wing of the Republican Party with him. Being a Bush and everything, he’ll probably get the national security Neoconservatives as well. Especially if he keeps talking like G.W. when it comes to foreign policy and national security. But talking like G.W., won’t win Jeb the Tea Party, or bring the Rand Paul Libertarians with him. And sure as hell won’t win him the general election, if he gets that far in the fall. America, is not looking for another George W. Bush to govern them. And for a Republican to win the next presidential election, they’re going to have to be able to speak and communicate with voters who want something different. Who’ll continue to keep America strong.
C-SPAN: Jeb Bush Presidential Campaign Announcement- Full Speech

U.S. News: Peter Fenn: The Rapid Radicalization of the Republican Party

U.S. News: Opinion: Peter Fenn: The Rapid Radicalization of the Republican Party

Source:The New Democrat

If it wasn’t for the fact that John Boehner had a choice in whether or not to run for House Minority Leader back in late 2006 after Congressional Democrats won back the House and Senate and then later run for Speaker of the House in 2010 after House Republicans won back the House, I would probably feel sorry for the man. Because he’s the head, but not leading a caucus of Republicans that doesn’t believe in governing. They believe in their principles and their tactics and their ideas and anything less than that is worse than actually governing and moving the ball forward on whatever the issue is at the time.

The House Republican Conference, which is what House Republicans call their team in the House, Democrats call their team the Democratic Caucus, but the HRC especially its Tea Party and Republican Study Committee are the main reasons why Congress doesn’t work. Not the only reasons, plenty of issues over in the Senate especially in previous Congress’s, where Senate Democrats would bring their own bills to the floor that generally wouldn’t even go though committee and Leader Harry Reid would bring them to the floor and not allow amendments. At least not any Republican amendments because Leader Reid didn’t want his members vote on things that could hurt them in their reelection campaigns. And as a result Senate Republicans led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell would simply block from consideration anything that Senate Democrats would try to pass themselves.

But House Republicans would say they passed all of these bills over in the House and say they did their jobs. Not mentioning that most of the legislation they passed was passed with mostly Republican votes without any Democratic input and would even lose several of their own members on their bills. And a lot of the stuff they would pass like having to do with the Affordable Care Act and cutting benefits there to pass other things wouldn’t even get a vote in the Senate because Senate Democrats would view it as unacceptable. And all these crisis’ would develop because House Republicans would pass their own bills and think everything they did was all the work they needed to do. And when the crisis is broken in the Senate thanks to Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell with a compromise from both sides, they would pass it and send it back to the House and House Republicans would say, “hell no!” Because it isn’t their bill.

The 2011 debt ceiling crisis where House Republicans attached an ObamaCare rider to the debt ceiling increase is a perfect example of that. The so-called fiscal cliff in 2012-13 where House Republicans wouldn’t accept any tax cut extension that had any increases on the top tax rate, even if the bill extends tax cuts for everyone else in the country. They would’ve rather have seen tax cuts expire on everyone, than to see tax rates on the top go up. Then go up to the government shut down in the fall of 2013 where the government is shut down for a month. Because House Republicans wouldn’t pass a budget and the appropriations unless the Affordable Care Act was repealed. And the last almost government shutdown involving Homeland Security, where House Republicans attached an immigration rider involving President Obama’s executive order on immigration.

The Tea Party Caucus or the Republican Study Committee there, looks like to me anyway the audience of right-wing if not Far-Right talk radio in America and the publications and blogs that they follow. These people don’t believe in governing or government. At least not divided government, which means if they don’t get their way all the way all the time, nobody gets anything. And as a result some crisis gets created because this group in the House won’t compromise. Which is how divided government works. You can say this all started the day that Barack Obama became President of the United States, a man this group and their followers I’m sure hates for obvious reasons, which I won’t get into. But they gave President George W. Bush headaches over things like immigration and education reform as well.

One might say that these Republicans would be better and more responsible if they had a united government. Republican President, with a Republican Congress both House and Senate. But as the early days of this new Republican Congress has started, controlling both the House and Senate instead of just the House hasn’t improved their ability to even pass basic bills that government has to have in order to function. Like Homeland Security and later we’ll see if House and Senate Republicans can come together and pass a federal budget on their own. Because House and Senate Democrats won’t work with them on that, if the Republican Leadership doesn’t work with them. Meaning both sides work together and pass a united budget, instead of one side agreeing to pass the other’s budget. Give Republicans the whole government and they’ll just fight among themselves. Creating a hell for a mainstream Republican President.

The Week: Jeff Spross: Why Reform Conservatives Should Join The Democratic Party

Source: The Week-

Source: The New Democrat

I wonder 20-25 years ago when the New Democrats started emerging in the Democratic Party did someone from lets say The Nation on the Far-Left or National Review on the Center-Right write a piece with the title something to the effect, “Why New Democrats Should Join The Republican Party”. Maybe I’ll look that up later and of course the New Democrats were the Center-Left Democrats who saved the Democratic Party from frankly McGovernism. The Far-Left or New-Left that took over the Democratic Party in 1968 and ran that party up until 1988 or so. When New Democrat Governor Mike Dukakis won the Democratic nomination for president.

The New Democrats weren’t about and still aren’t about making the Democratic Party a centrist party with no hard left or right. But making the Democratic Party a center-left party with Liberals and Progressives as the main faces and leaders of the party. That still believes in using government to achieve great things. But that government can’t do everything for everybody all the time. And we can’t tax our way to prosperity and take so much money from people that they don’t have freedom over their own lives. And that government should be used to empower people. Not make people dependent on government.

The Reform Conservatives at least to me look like the New Democrats of the Republican Party. Conservatives who want to bring the GOP back from its hard-right if not far-right image and make it a party that can appeal to working class and minority Americans. So it’s not just a party of Southern a rural Anglo-Saxon Protestant men. And rich Anglo-Saxon Northeastern men. But a party that can compete and win in the Northeast and Midwest at the national level, win back Florida and even be competitive if not win California. The Republican Party did all of these things very well up until 1992 when again they lost to New Democrat Bill Clinton in the presidential election.

Welfare to Work is a Reform Conservative/New Democrat anti-poverty program that was passed in 1996. Reform conservatism is about using conservative policies to appeal to a broader base of American voters. Who like things like smarter and limited regulations, lower taxes, economic freedom. But don’t want government trying to run their personal lives for them including if they can join a union or not. And are people who aren’t just Anglo-Saxon as far as ethnicity and not just Protestant when it comes to their religion. Don’t just live in the Bible Belt and aren’t just men.

The Republican Party as a conservative has a history of appealing to a broad base of Americans. That was gone by 1996 or so when they became the party of the South and rural Midwest and West. And what Reform Conservatives are saying is that the Republican Party needs a conservative message and policies that appeals to more than just their traditional Bible Belt/country club base. They have to find ways to connect with working class voters. As well as Latinos and Asians and women of all races. And even Jewish and African-Americans if that is still possible for them at this point. To become governing party in the near-future.
Washington Examiner: Phillip Klein Discusses Reform Conservatism With Yuval Levin

The Street: Joseph Deaux: A Brokered GOP Convention is Very Unlikely

Source:The FreeState

If you read my blog on a regular basis, you know that a month or go or so I suggested that Rick Santorum end his presidential campaign and endorse Newt Gingrich. So the right-wing could unite behind one presidential candidate. And unite against what they see as a Damn Yankee Northeastern Republican. Who they believe doesn’t share their values, because he’s not a big Government republican looking to impose his values on the rest of the country. 

Senator Santorum doesn’t seem to be interested in social issues at all except when he talks to Religious Conservatives. Well all of these Far-Right big government groups are now backing Rick Santorum. Because they see him as someone who can win and will say whatever it takes to get their support, unlike Mitt Romney. Keep in mind these blogs about the Republican Party and the right-wing are coming from a Liberal Democrat who’s also a political junky. And a big reason why I blog about these things. 

But also keep in mind, without Newt’s lousy debate performance back in February, chances are he probably wins Florida or comes damn close. And the GOP establishment might be looking for a new frontrunner at this moment. And Newt might be the frontrunner that the rest of the GOP Is, pardon the expression, shitting bricks terrified about right now. But that didn’t happen, the bad debate in Florida, followed by the Romney attack machine taking him down. After that, ended whatever chances of Newt Gingrich winning the GOP nomination.

If Rick Santorum wins Kansas, Alabama and Mississippi, all of them Tuesday, Newt if he still gives a damn about the Republican Party would be smart to drop his presidential campaign. Endorse Rick Santorum and allow for Rick to build off of that momentum. And prepare for the Texas Primary. If Rick were to win Louisiana and Texas as well, we might have a new Republican presidential race. But with Rick and Newt competing for the same voters and everyone else voting for Mitt, Mitt Romney sails to the Republican Nomination.

The Weekly Standard: Daniel Halper: Newt Looking to Deliver Knockout Punch in Florida

Source:The FreeState

The Weekly Standard: Opinion: Daniel Halper: Newt Looking to Deliver Knockout Punch in Florida 

I don’t see Newt Gingrich delivering a “knockout punch” in South Carolina for Florida, but with Speaker Gingrich’s overwhelmingly victory tonight in South Carolina, it does change the political landscape for the GOP presidential race. Last week we I guess, the political pundits, were talking about South Carolina as the state that Mitt Romney is going to wrap up the GOP nomination for President. Because he had a big clear victory in New Hampshire. 

And all the momentum that Mitt needed to move on from there to get the GOP nomination and then move to concentrate on the President. Because Governor Romney was able to open up a big lead in South Carolina. So what happened, a few things. Newt has two great debates, Monday and Thursday nights last week. Mitt has a mediocre debate on Monday night and a bad debate Thursday night. Newt whips Mitt on the national stage where South Carolina is watching. Plus Mitt’s tax returns didn’t help as well.

My issues with Mitt Romney have always been with his honesty. Is he saying what he believes or what he thinks we want to hear. I believe Mitt is running for President for the right reasons. He believes America is in trouble etc and wants to help. And that his career in corporate America and experience can fix the problems. But Mitt has gone about it the wrong way, his whole strategy seems to be is to say "what it takes to get the job and then when you get the job" do what you think is right".  

That campaign strategy just doesn’t work in American politics. He just doesn’t seem to have a message of other, than he’s the best person for the job. But what he doesn’t understand, is to get the job you have to prove you're the best candidate for it. And Newt has capitalized on Mitt’s weakness’s at least for this week. Newt Gingrich should have some momentum going into Florida. And if he does well in the Monday night debate, may take the lead or pull very close to Mitt Romney. 

The Romney Campaign has already announced their strategy for taking down Newt and will have new attack ads focusing on Speaker Gingrich’s Speakership and leadership. And Newt is going to have to be prepared for that and be able to fight back against those political attacks and winning South Carolina should help the Gingrich Campaign with their fundraising. So Florida should be very interesting and as a political junky I’m looking forward to it.

National Journal: Ron Brownstein: Good News and Bad News For Newt Gingrich in Florida

Source:The FreeState  

National Journal 

What difference a debate can make, or how about, if you're a football fan, you're familiar with term, "live by the blitz, die by the blitz". Meaning for you English speakers, football teams that base their defense on blitzing, are successful and unsuccessful based on how they blitz. They do well and get burned by it and when you're a presidential candidate, who’s had most of his success so far based on his debating skills and quick wit and being able to turn things around on other people, you have to win the debates to win elections. 

You should have enough hints about who I’m talking about by now. And you have a bad debate, an off night however you want to put it, as a result you get burned by the debate, just like Newt Gingrich has had a lot of success in previous debates, practically winning all of them, Newt had such and off night last Thursday, he’s probably going to lose Florida tomorrow. And its just a matter of how much, 10 points being the key. Under or over for Newt.

The good news for Newt is that over weekend, he’s picked up some key endorsements. From Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, some Tea Party groups. Cuban Floridians seem to like him, that won’t pull Florida out for Newt. But may be able to keep Mitt Romney’s victory under ten points. And give the Newter Campaign with a floor in how far they can drop. So they rebuild their momentum going forward and be a factor in Nevada and other key states that are coming up. 

Especially in caucus states like Minnesota, where Newt’s style of campaigning, talking and listening to people up front, giving interviews and of course the debates and these endorsements could help Newt be a big factor in these up incoming primaries by getting people to the polls for him. The other good news for Newt is even though he’s fallen, Rick Santorum and Ron Pau haven’t given up and Newt’s been picking up some new endorsements. 

And there will be more pressure on Rick Sanrtorum to step down and endorse Newt. Especially if Santorum  has a bad night tomorrow. So Newt will still be able to target Mitt and go after the Santorum supporters and bring them with him. Especially if he beats the odds tomorrow night. And doesn’t get blown out in a Florida hurricane, pun intended.

Commentary Magazine: Jonathan S. Tobin: Report of Tea Party Demise Premature

Source:The FreeState

Commentary Magazine: Opinion: Reports of Tea Party Demise Premature  

Two years ago when I started blogging about the Tea Party, I upfront blogged and predicted that the Tea Party was the Christian Right of the 1990s, with an economic libertarian message. But they still wanted to tell Americans how to live their lives and outlaw activities that are currently legal. Which is what we saw with Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign. Where once Newt Gingrich lost any hope of being a serious Republican Candidate. 

A lot of Newt's support went to the Santorum Campaign, that already had Religious and Neoconservatives with them. Two years later I’m back to believing what I originally believed. As some of the Tea Party leaders, like Sarah Palin and Representative Michelle Bachmann who are both Religious Conservatives, which has basically become the same movement. When I saw people like Rand Paul of Kentucky, guess who is father is. Senator Rom Johnson of Wisconsin and Mike Lee of Utah, all people with Conservative Libertarian leanings on Social Issues. 

These are not big government Republicans, getting elected to the Senate. Then I was thinking they have problems with things like the Patriot Act, indefinite detention. And the Federal Government regulating marriage, I thought damn I was wrong about the Tea Party. And glad I was, good news for the Republican Party and even though I’m a Liberal Democrat. I believe in having two strong parties, because I don’t want to see America become a one-party state. Thats not good for liberal democracy.

Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum, even though Palin and Bachmann have lost influenced in the GOP, are 21st Century Religious-Right leaders. If Mitt Romney doesn’t get elected President in 2012, Rick Santorum will be the Frontrunner going into 2016. If he plays that right, which is all the evidence that you need to know that at least a big portion of the Tea Party has merged with Religious and Neoconservatives. And have become big government Republicans. 

There are still Conservative Libertarian elements in the Tea Party. Senator Paul and Senator Lee are perfect examples of that, but when the Republican alternative to be President is Rick Santorum, thats all you need to know that big government republicanism is alive and well in the GOP and not going anywhere The Tea Party when they first started had an opportunity to move the GOP back to Reagan conservatism. 

And not only give Republicans but also Independents people to get behind. And move the party past Bush Neoconservatism but with all the big government positions. They’ve now come out in favor of like outlawing pornography and same-sex marriage from the Federal level. They are now just the Christian Right of the 1990s. But with a conservative economic message.

The Washington Post: Michael Gerson: The Tea Party Risks Scaring Away Voters

The Washington Post: Opinion: Michael Gerson: The Tea Party Risks Scaring Away Voters

I'm going to take you on a trip back in time to the mid 1960s and we'll work are way up to the early 1980s as well. Imagine had the Barry Goldwater classical conservative movement managed to take over the Republican Party during this time period. And today it becomes what we see with Senator Rand Paul, or they combine with his father former Representative Ron Paul and this kind of conservative libertarian movement took over the Republican Party. With the Dick Nixon's, Gerry Ford's, Ron Reagan, George Bush's who all had things in common with this movement, but who are perhaps not pure conservative libertarians, but able to work with these movement's to lead the party.

Imagine had the Conservative Libertarians taken over the GOP and essentially kicked out the Northeastern Progressives, or those Republicans become more like moderate Conservatives as we see with Mitt Romney and Olympia Snowe to use as examples. The Libertarian Party never gets up and running is ever formed in the early 1970s. Why, because there simply wouldn't any need for it. The Progressives in the Democratic Party would've continued to push the safety net and perhaps even for a welfare state which is even bigger. But the Republican Party wouldn't of helped them and instead would've pushed to reform current federal social insurance programs and decentralize them and send them to the states.

The Christian Right still comes into business, but wouldn't have the power that they do today, or have had the last forty years or so. Because again you have these Conservative Libertarians and moderate Conservatives from the Northeast and Midwest and even Mid-Atlantic running the party. The Christian  Right would've been left with a handful of seats in Congress in the Bible Belt for the most part. And probably treated by their Congressional Leadership the way the Progressive Caucus is treated in the House and Senate. As people you basically only talk to when you need their votes.

Another reason why the Libertarian Party would've never had gotten started is because again the Christian Right and the Neoconservatives aren't running the GOP. So the big government social agenda in the GOP is never put on the table in any big way as either part of the party platform, or into law. Even if this did happen, I'm not saying the Republican Party would be winning a majority of the African-American vote. The civil rights laws and all of those Southern Democrats bolting to the GOP as a result changed that forever. But maybe they get thirty or forty percent of the African-American vote. And the same thing with the Latin-American vote because you wouldn't consistently see Republicans who are tagged with either racial views or racists towards these groups.

Of course the Conservative Libertarians don't run the GOP. But they are certainly a growing and strong faction in the party today and I believe the GOP's best hope of appealing to Latinos and Millennial's in the future. And what you instead of Conservative Libertarians in charge are the Christian Right, Neoconservatives and Neoconfederates who love to talk about how much they love the Constitution. When at the same time they talk about how much they want to change the Constitution. Who take the Ron Paul anti-government views when it comes to the economy and public social insurance and almost anything that the Federal Government does that is not national security related as being unconstitutional. While they want to give the Federal Government more power as it relates to Americans personal lives.

The point I believe Mike Gerson was making in his column about the Tea Party is that they put the Republican Party in jeopardy with their anti-government approach because they have a habit of bashing public services that a majority Americans like and use everyday. And public infrastructure is a perfect example of that and the reason why Congress hasn't passed a highway bill yet this year is because the Tea Party in the House essentially believes the Federal Government has no business in funding infrastructure. Which makes Congress's job when it comes to legislating almost impossible, but infrastructure is just an example of that. The Republican Party pays a price for it because they look like people who can't get meals prepared and cars parked you know doing the basic business of government.

The Week: Damon Linker: The Laughable to get Mitt Romney to Run in 2016

Source: The Week-

Source:The Week

Hubert Humphrey had a great line in 1968 when he and Richard Nixon were the Democratic and Republican nominees for president. Vice President Humphrey's line was about one of Mr. Nixon's campaign themes for president in 1968 which was The New Nixon. And talking about Nixon's multiple political comebacks in his career as well as attempted political comebacks.

The 1952 Checkers speech that kept then Senator Nixon on the Republican ticket for Vice President.

The experienced and ready to serve Nixon in 1960 when he ran for President the first time.

The New Nixon 1962 when he ran for Governor of California in after losing the 1960 presidential election to Jack Kennedy.

And what Hubert said about all of these new Nixon's was that "a man who has had as many political face lifts and touchups in his career can't be very new". I'm paraphrasing here but that is damn close. And you go to Mitt Romney and doesn't matter which Mitt you choose and I'll get into more of that later, but Mitt Romney has had a similar political career. One of the differences between Tricky Dick Nixon and Flip Flopper Mitt Romney is that Dick won most of his political elections. Nixon was 8-2 as a political candidate and incumbent which covers all of his Congressional, Vice Presidential and Presidential elections. Mitt is 1-3 not exactly a winner as a politician.

But let's take a look at Mitt Romney's political career because that should explain that 1-3 record. He was Liberal Democrat Mitt in 1994 essentially running as a New Democrat in Massachusetts (even though he is a Republican, go figure) for U.S. Senate against the progressive champion Senator Ted Kennedy. He lost that election overwhelmingly an election where he was a strong favorite going in. Then Moderate Mitt shows up in 2002 when he ran for Governor of Massachusetts. And of course that is still the only election Mitt has ever won in now sixty-seven years on this planet. Moderate Mitt managed to stay around as Governor until he ran for President the first time in 2007.

In 2007-08 Religious-Conservative/Neo-Con Hawk (even though he's a Mormon and comes from a religion that believes in multiple spouses) Mitt shows up to run for President the first time. Mike Huckabee deserves the credit for the best line about Mitt Romney in that campaign. When Governor Huckabee said that "Mitt looks like the man who fired your father". Mitt Romney has Wall Street country club Northeastern conservative establishment Republican written all over his chess and back. And yet he's never run as someone who is proud of his success in life. But the candidate who runs as the guy who tries to please everybody, but instead offends everyone at the same time.

In 2009-10 was probably the best part of Mitt Romney's political career where he was once again out of public office because he couldn't get a job in it. But that is a time when he did some real studying about current affairs especially foreign policy and learning about the United States Government and issues that the country was facing. The problem was that he didn't use that knowledge very well to communicate a reason for why he should be elected President in 2012. But instead focused on who does he need to vote for him and how to talk everyone at the same time with different messages for each group.

2012 is the biggest stain not only on Mitt's career and something the Republican Party is going to have a real hard time living down especially if they lose again in 2016 and fail to win back the Senate in 2014. Because 2012 at least based on history and the economy was an election they should've won at least on paper. Going up against a fairly weak incumbent (but not weak enough for Mitt Romney) in President Barack Obama who was somewhere around 45% approval nationally with a struggling economy that had eight-percent unemployment most of the year that was barely growing. With a high budget deficit and national debt.

But again we are talking about Mitt Romney here so what does he do, but of course changes his political appearance once again. Who is Mitt Romney? You ask Mitt and put him on truth serum and he might say "I'm who I need to be to accomplish what I want to accomplish at any given time". You ask him off of truth serum and you may get five different answers to the same question at the same time. 2012 was Flip Flopper Mitt because I'm still struggling to figure out what his campaign theme was about because he changed it multiple times. At best it was successful businessman with a history of turning struggling organizations around who would turn the American economy around Mitt. Not exactly inspirational.

When the main question about a politician or a politician wannabe in Mitt Romney's case who has spent only four years of his entire life in public office (not for a lack of trying) because he lost most of the elections he's run in, but when the main question is after twenty years on public life as far as being well known and the number one question is "who are you?" Or "who is he"? You know you are in trouble as a political candidate. And that pretty much summarizes the political career of Mitt  Romney. The man who didn't even have the guts to let voters know who is he and what is he about and why they should vote for him.
The Tonight Show With Jimmy Fallon: Slow Jam The News- With Mitt Romney

The Federalist: Fred Cole- 'Sweat The Details Later: The Case For Libertarians Working Together'

Source:The Federalist- U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky) and I'm guessing his wife.

"Richard Epstein recently wrote in his Defining Ideas column about where he parts company with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and what he terms as “hard-line libertarians.”

Richard drew a fair distinction between himself — a classical liberal who uses the term “libertarian” as shorthand — and the whole taxation-as-theft branch of libertarianism, of which I’ll happily count myself as a member. From Epstein’s “My Rand Paul Problem“:

Libertarians fall into two distinct groups: strict libertarians like Rand Paul and classical liberals such as myself. “Classical liberal” is not a term that rolls off of the tongue. Consequently, “libertarian” is the choice term in popular discourse when discussing policies that favor limited government. Libertarians of all stripes oppose President Obama’s endless attacks on market institutions and the rich. The umbrella term comfortably embraces both strands of libertarian theory vis-à-vis a common intellectual foe.

The renewed attention to Paul exposes the critical tension between hard-line libertarians and classical liberals. The latter are comfortable with a larger government than hard-core libertarians because they take into account three issues that libertarians like Paul tend to downplay: (1) coordination problems; (2) uncertainty; (3) and matters of institutional design."  

From The Federalist 

"Are you a conservative?  If so, Dr. Stephen Davies suggests that it may be worth considering the ideas of libertarianism. For instance, conservatives tend to prefer institutions that have been tried and trusted, and want to maintain and uphold a traditionally established way of life. They also typically believe in an established or correct moral code. However, it does not logically follow that government should enforce all of these things. In fact, government enforcement of morals and traditions is often detrimental to both."  

Source:Learn Liberty- Dr. Stephen Davies.

From Learn Liberty

This is the debate that the Republican Party should be having right now between Libertarians (the Ron Paul’s of the world) and the Conservative libertarian branch the old Barry Goldwater/Ronald Reagan wing of the party that seems to be led by Senator Rand Paul. And I would add Senator Mike Lee, Senator Ron Johnson and Senator Jeff Flake to that list as well. Because these are the real Conservatives in the Republican Party. Not the Far-Right faction of the Tea Party. But the Conservative Libertarians in the party.

The Republican Party will not be a governing party again at the national level which means controlling the White House unless they bring in new voters. And as big government is more unpopular both from an economic and personal point of view, Republicans need to drop big government and their Far-Right and get back to their conservative roots, if they expect to be able to compete with Democrats for the new voters that they need: Latinos, Asians, Jews, economically conservative African-Americans.

Right now the competing factions in the Republican Party that could actually move it forward and beyond their Bible Belt Christian-Nationalist base, it’s the Ron Paul classical libertarian branch. The Rand Paul conservative libertarian branch and the establishment the leadership in the Republican Party. That is supposed to look out for the best interest of the GOP that tends to be economically and foreign policy oriented. And not so much interested in the social issues.

The conservative libertarian branches of the GOP is how they move forward and become a governing party again. That would even win back the U.S. Senate as well. Because they could tell Americans especially younger Americans that they have an economic message that young people could like. And they’re not trying to run their personal lives for them. Because the Religious-Right and Far-Right in general no longer runs the Republican Party. 

You can also see this post at The FreeState, on Blogger.