RSS Feed

a playground of art, photos, videos, writing, music, life


You are here

Random Quote

One great use of words is to hide our thoughts.
-- Voltaire


Blog - Blog Archive by Month - Blog Archive by Tag - Search Blog and Comments

<-- Go to Previous Page



I recently heard a definition of the Republican Party that I think nails what Republicans have tried to be:

limited government, traditional values
In the past, I think that pretty much translated into a push for a small government that would create laws to protect the family and to protect individual religious freedom.

It might be me, but I think it's morphed into something else along the way. It became a movement to create laws that insisted on biblical principle. People saw the word "God" in the founding documents of our country and came to believe that all of our founders were devout Christians and intended for God to written into the government.

As such, a significant part of the Republican party now believes that the definition of Republican is "traditional values, woven into government." I think this notion is best represented this way:

They want values elevated, and post-Bill Clinton and myriad political scandals on both sides of the aisle, they want the government cleaned up and brought back in line with traditional values.

I get that. It would be nice. But as you increase the desire on the level of government to represent "traditional values," you can't help but increase the scope of government solutions as well. A yearning for traditional values in government inescapably becomes this:

That's the fracture in the Republican party right now. The limited government folks want exactly that: limited government. The traditional values crowd wants exactly that: traditional values in society.

The two are diametrically opposed. The traditional values crowd wants government-imposed solutions, which can't help but grow the government. The limited government folks want personal liberty.

At one end of this spectrum, there will inevitably be a third party. It might not be for a couple of years, but there will certainly be that. It's just a question of time.


by Brett Rogers, 1/21/2008 1:20:38 PM


After seeing the SC results come in I too started pondering a 3rd party somewhere down the line. My thought process went from Fred to Mitt as a last hope candidate. If McCain or Huckleberry get the nomination, I like many conservatives (and I don't mean social conservatives) will sit out the election (like I did in 06). I'm not going to sell out principle for the candidate least likely to do damage anymore. I don't care if it means President Obama or another President Clinton. Maybe what the country needs is 4-8 years of socialism to re-kindle what the founding fathers intended for government.



Posted by Pale Rider, 1/21/2008 7:34:52 PM

After a lot of thought, I'd hold my nose to keep Hillary out of office and vote for McCain. If Obama is the nominee, I might go third party. Or write-in.

But either way, and even if Mitt wins the nomination, I'm so spent on the ill-advised policies/practices of the Republicans that I'm angling hard for a third party. We need choices, and we don't have them with the current crop of politicians.



Posted by Brett Rogers (, 1/21/2008 9:22:37 PM

I'm willing to sacrifice a few years of Hillary if it brings about a true conservative movement that brings us back closer to what our government should be. This is a woman who's entire political (and professional) career have been a scam. 4 years should be enough to drive her out and turn the tide from some of the stupidity that is being pitched today.

Out of the depths of the Carter presidency we got Reagan. Sometimes you have to cut off your own foot to save the entire body. I know it is a grim, dark way to look at this but that is where the two political parties have driven me. My last shred of hope lays with Fred and Mitt. They drop out and there is nothing left to get behind and fight for. For me, I say let the next president fall flat on their ass, let the country learn the hard way. Then maybe, just maybe, in 2012 we'll get another leader like Reagan. Hint hint for Newt. :)



Posted by Pale Rider, 1/21/2008 9:57:45 PM

You appeal to my harder side - cutting off the foot and all that. The only thing is: I think I'd rather have McCain's choices for lifetime-appointed Justices than Hillary's. And if McCain enacts half of what we think he might, then it won't be much different than having Hillary in there. Pain enough there. I think if we see how bad the Republican party is at nominating quality people, we'll go for the real deal outside of the party. Really - from Trent Lott to McCain to Huckabee to Ted Stevens, I've given up hope. There are only a few good people, and there's no way they'll salvage the party.

As for Newt, I once liked him a lot, but now, I'm underwhelmed. He likes Hillary.



Posted by Brett Rogers (, 1/21/2008 11:16:47 PM

WHAT??????? Newt likes Hillary? Has the world gone mad? Just finish me off and tell me Rush was spotted smoking cigars and hanging out on the golf course with Bill Clinton.

I like that I appeal to the harder side. I'm kind of like the subconscious devil that appears on one's shoulder, whispering non-politically correct conservative truths.

At this point I don't care much about supreme court nominations. Republicans are responsible for some of the lefties on the court now and rubber stamped that whackjob Ginsburg. The hot button issue these days is Roe vs. Wade and I don't see any court overturning it.

So if need be, I'm ready to down my scotch, bite down on my towel, and start cutting. 2012 isn't that far off.

On the bright side it is above zero today. :)



Posted by Pale Rider, 1/22/2008 10:19:39 AM

Add Your Comment:
Name (required):
Web Site:
Remember Me:   
Content: (4000 chars remaining)
To prevent spammers from commenting, please give a one-word answer to the following trivia question:

What do you call the white fluffy things that float in the sky? (plural)