The Kenney Memo: A Modest Proposal for Virginia Republicans
By Shaun Kenney | Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008 | PolicyFrom the introduction:
We know this, whether we are prepared to admit it publicly or not. The Republican Party of Virginia is broken, but not on ideas or principle.
The Republican Party of Virginia logistically is a wreck. Talk of throwing any part of our coalition overboard is both premature and unsound. Good candidates will no longer be able to paper over the severe disadvantages we have placed ourselves under. Until Virginia Republicans recognize and correct this problem, we will continue to slide further into a minority status.
Quick reforms are needed. This approach – even if taken in parts over time – will allow RPV’s infrastructure to make immediate strikes into our 2009 races now, while allowing Virginia Republicans the “long game” to re-ignite the entrepreneurial spirit we have arguably lost.
Click here for the rest of the memo (PDF 230K)
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Shaun Kenney is the Chairman of the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors, former Communications Director for the Republican Party of Virginia, and an active blogger since 2002. Shaun lives in Thomas Jefferson's backyard with his wife, six children, and a modest attempt at a farm in Kents Store, Virginia.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
42 Responses to "The Kenney Memo: A Modest Proposal for Virginia Republicans"
I have a well thought out, technologicaly advanced plan to organize all of RPV’s data into an easily accesabile and customizeable database. It involves Google Earth API and Voter Vault. Anyone who is interested can e-mail me at straightvb@gmail.com to get all the details. Hopefully RPV will not pass over this idea like they do many other good ones. Either way I am already in the process of having the technology privately developed. The technology incorporates VOIP, e-mail , mail merges based on location, walklisting, and dynamic data display controls that will allow users to easily change the properties of the data displayed on the 3D map.
See, I’d disagree with you on one point. While I agree that the STATED principles of the Republican Party are sound, I’ve yet to see them consistently applied. Why is the RPV fielding very un-republican candidates? Why do you, as a party, not call these candidates out? Give those of us who truly believe in fiscal conservatism and social freedom something to work with. That’s why the RP in general failed this past time around… its actions do not match the ideals.
I will stick to my promise. If the RPV starts fielding candidates that exemplify its ideals, I’ll join the RPV.
Shaun, is the satirical nature and spirit of Swift’s original Modest Proposal something you really want to harken back to with this document? No offense, but you’ve put together some seemingly good thoughts here, that the title only serves (in my mind at least) to somewhat trivialize or diminish. Nitpicking, yes, but i’ll leave the content for others to comment on, as I don’t imagine I’m quite your target audience.
Chad P,
That’s the problem. If the Republicans keep fielding candidates that appeal to you they are not going to win majorities.
Societal freedom? If you want “societal freedom” that includes legalized recreational drug use and legalized prostitution you are going to have a problem.
That’s not you? The Republican base includes Libertarians who actively seek to further these goals. Hell fire no! I am not going to stand with a party that seeks to further these goals.
Now you were saying?
Kakistocracy – Government by those least endowed to govern, yet able to raise the money necessary to win a campaign…
Jeremy –
I was actually afraid of the converse; that the “new media” solutions would be read as new-media-to-the-exclusion-of-all-else, and hoped that those critics could at least point towards the title as an assurance.
Obviously, new media is only a fraction of the solution. But the outlet does provide some form of cure for the problem Chad P accurately points out — we aren’t getting quality candidates.
Now I would argue that great committees recruit great candidates, while great candidates only paper over the problems of lackluster committees (or any organization) . But if Chad P (or Shaun K) wanted to do this today in their locality, where is the outlet? How is that energy channelled?
The answer… new media.
Schapiro –
I’ll e-mail you… because if RPV can’t do it, the netroots will have no alternative but to do it ourselves.
Regards,
(and more than happy to field questions about the memo here at Bearing Drift)
Shaun-
It was nice to read this. You have some excellent points. I do think that 11 PD’s is too many, especially because I’ve never been helped by one on any campaign I’ve worked on.
I especially like your discussion of the voter files. I like voter files.
I had a long discussion one night with the IT guy from VA victory. We came to the conclusion that any race smaller than statewide could not take advantage of the scantron capabilites of Voter Vault. It simply is too much tech overhead for any single campaign. But data coordination is obviously the most important part of grassroots, and I wonder what units could do about enabling or cost-sharing. I love a good walk list.
Seamus –
That’s exactly what RPV is there to do… and when you pool all of those resources together, what should come out are (1) quality, (2) walkable lists that (3) look as if someone cared about the output and (4) wants to see them back.
If our unit committees and grassroots are our soldiers, doesn’t it make sense to provide them with as much ammo as possible?
11 PDs isn’t a theory… it’s actually and old reform (believe it or not) proposed to RPV in 2000 from the 1st District. Never adopted… but a good idea nonetheless.
Regards,
Seems to me that the incumbent protection machine isn’t working very well.
If the GOBs have all the control, what exactly is the purpose of the RPV?
A cut and paste job on the Org chart or implementing all the nifty tools in the universe aren’t going to convince voters that don’t trust your candidates because of past actions by your incumbents.
With all due respect to Chap P, is killing 50 million unborn babies nationwide societal freedom? Maybe for the mother, but definitely not for that child who is entitled the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Secondly, true marriage has been and always will be a union between one man and one woman. Redefining this sacred institution is most definitely NOT a Republican principle. Our Founding Fathers understood that desency should be preserved in a society, and our party must understand that if we are to succeed in the future.
[...] Over at Bearing Drift Shaun Kenney has presented A Modest Proposal for Virginia Republicans [...]
Littledavid,
Is the goal of the Republican party, then, to win at all costs? It seems counterproductive to run candidates who do not support your ideals, just to have someone with an R after their name. You run RINO candidates often enough, that becomes what your party IS.
My personal views of drugs (don’t need them would never do them, think it’s generally stupid) and prostitution (who has a self esteem so low that paying for sex is an option?) should be irrelevant. If the people engaging in such activity are not infringing upon my rights, I have no reason to stop them from doing whatever they want to do with whoever they want to do it with.
I also think habitual smoking is stupid. Shall we outlaw that too, to protect people against themselves? What of overeating? It has measurable health risks, so perhaps we should send grossly overweight people to prison for damaging their health?
Steven,
The problem with assuming that someone holds cookie-cutter opinions is that… people don’t hold cookie cutter opinions. I am neither pro-choice nor pro-life… I’m currently looking at the data, studying the science, and trying to come up with a position that is well-reasoned. I think that both “sides” of that debate are extremists and unreasonable. I’d be happy to discuss it with you elsewhere, but I’d hate to hijack the comments for what is usually a fruitless argument.
True marriage was once defined as “a union of one man and one woman of the same ethnic background.” Most of us would agree that that stance was wrong, though. Point being, tradition isn’t always correct.
Government does not need to be involved in marriage at all. If we weren’t letting government decide what constituted marriage, we’d not even have to have that discussion. Churches could recognize marriages (or not) and we could all move on to more important things.
Preventing homosexual marriage is’t going to stop homosexuality or homosexual sex, or make on iota of difference in who turns out gay and who turns out straight. You know that, right?
Chad P,
If you want to stand on principal then go stand on your principals, as given in your post, with the Libertarian Party.
Go over there and stand please.
Seems the Libertarians can not win elections as proven by Ron Paul. Seems Republicans have a two faced position. Family values and Libertarian at the same time. Ever heard of hypocrites?
I’m hoping the Republican Party can rehabilitate itself towards something I might be willing to vote for once again. The Libertarians already have their own party and I will not cast my vote in their direction.
LIttleDavid – Just curious, what elements of the Libertarian ideology do you not agree with? Not picking a fight, just want to know.
Personally, I think libertarians (little l) have a place in the Republican Party so long as we understand what the long pole in the big tent is: fiscal responsibility and all it entails (smaller government, lower taxes, entrepreneurship, free market principles, etc). And the “we” being not just Republicans but the libertarians who come into the fold.
Jason Kenney,
Legalized prostitution, legalized recreational drug use, destroying Social Security, I could go on but these top the list.
Are these things the Republican Party wants to stand behind?
Shaun:
Great memo with many valid points. From your #5:
“The tough part is this – it will require a strong chairman with a good reputation in the General Assembly to accomplish this. This more than anything else is a goal which RPV should commit
itself towards resolving.”
Does ANYONE seriously believe Jeff Frederick is this person?
Max Shapiro is dead-on with his definition.
Jason, there has always been a place for (lowercase l libertarians) within our party. We simply ask that they do not demand (as Chap P did) that our party conform to the Libertarian Party’s positions. I know people who hold somewhat libertarian economic views, but are conservatives on social issues and naational security.
Little David it can be frustrating but the alternative is the Democrats
The three stools are all here
Social Conservatives
libertarians (I’ll throw in fiscal conservatives here)
Strong national defense folks
As you can see these three groups have very different views on many issues. To the point that many of us disagree with each other on many things.
As an example I am a libertarian/fiscal conservative. I don’t think government should be involved in the social issue stuff and I think the Defense Department and Intelligence Agencies have lots of waste and pork in them. To the untrained eye I would be totally against the other two stools.
However in most cases (not all) Il know democrats are not the answer for me or any of us who subscribe to one, two, or three of the different areas. Hence all of us together make up the Republican Coalition
novamiddleman,
Problem is for me that Republicans are not just partly Libertarians. They’re the ones who want to destroy the American Way on economics.
I define the American Way as being a progressive tax code.
I’ll be darned if I am going to agree with paying more taxes to give the likes of Paris Hilton a tax cut.
I want Republicans to defend the American Way when it comes to taxes. The American Way is a progressive tax code.
LittleDavid – It sounds to me like you’re asking the Party to change to something to fit your beliefs just as much as you feel Libertarians are. Sure, different beliefs, but still changes to tailor it to how you feel.
Thing is, all sides within the big tent have to pick and choose their battles. Again, it comes to the long pole that we all have to agree on, the one defining principle that makes the party what it is:
Fiscal responsibility – smaller government, lower taxes, free market principles and the spirit of entrepreneurship.
That is what Republicans win on, That is what Republicans have lost.
The American Way for economics does not include a central banking system or a purely fiat system.
In regards to social issues I believe the government should strive to make the conditions whereby the values most speak of are the most likely recourse. Attempting to force people to be ethical will not work, you need to make being moral the most advantageous course of action. In other words we must fight the causes of social evils, not the actions which express the evils. For example we must fight the need for people to use drugs, not the use and distribution of drugs. Seeking to keep drugs off of our streets is an exercise in futility. We cannot keep drugs out of our prisons, keeping them off our streets is a stupid dream. We should focus our efforts away from the users and only on producers and distributors to decrease the supply which will raise prices and lower demand. The added resources from stopping simple user prosecution should give adequete resources to interdict enough drug shipments and local producers to make a huge dent in the drug supply. If prices sky rocket people will not be able to afford drugs and a big piece of the profit motive invovled in selling them will dissapear. Coordinate this with a campaign to help mitigate the reasons for drug abuse and you have a winning plan.
Jason Kenny,
Yup, but if the Republican big tent not longer offers me shelter I can seek shelter in the Democratic tent.
When you speak of the big tent pole it is not simply based on economics.
If you look at the GOP’s history it has always had social conservatism as a central plank.(i.e Abe Lincoln with slavery) There were libertarian style thinkers in his day too, who said that government “should not get involved” in the issue if slavery. But in 1860 they were either Democrats or Constitutional Union party members.
Little David,
Legalized prostitution? Are you serious?
Legalized recreational drug use (as opposed to the high-test professional drug use)?
See — this is what kills me about the LP. Libertarians demand that rational actors don’t require governance, yet they are perfectly willing to exercise their “liberty” to do irrational things or promote vicious acts.
The bottom line is that there is no such thing as a “consentual crime” — the mistake many Capital-L Libertarians commit is the confusion of liberty with license.
Liberty is the ability to do as we ought. License is the ability to do whatever the hell we want… and there’s nothing libertarian about that.
That having been said, there are plenty of small-l libertarian ideas that the GOP should embrace. Social Security certainly isn’t working for my generation… why can’t I plan my own retirement?
But drug legalization? Prostitution — or better put, the objectification of other human beings for sex? As a student of Thomas Aquinas (and perhaps history as a whole), when I think of the principles of the American Revolution, the phrase “sex, drugs, and rock ‘n roll” really doesn’t come to mind.
Regards,
Right on dude!
Steven – Social conservatism based on liberty. But when we allow our SoCon side to turn into a big government means of regulating personal life, we lose that “liberty” basis.
….and after re-reading the post, LittleDavid would probably agree with everything I just wrote.
And I happen to agree on the progressive tax code. Flat taxes are regressive, as are sales taxes.
All that from uber-conservative Shaun Kenney, no less.
Regarding Social Conservativism:
The problem doesn’t sit with the positions of SoCos, but rather that SoCos have tended to use the power of big government to achieve our ends.
Dangerous, IMO.
Rather we kill the Leviathan and make sure the pendulum doesn’t swing the other way.
Rather that we would refuse to allow the power of coercive government to dictate to mothers why they should kill their unborn children.
Rather that government didn’t turn welfare recipients into victims of unending poverty.
Rather that our education system produced the best students through a competitive system rather than strive for mediocrity.
Rather that small businesses were given a free hand to operate rather than being knuckled down by corporatist agendas designed to put competition at a disadvantage.
Rather that our tax system was fair and light, rather than unfair and burdensome to those who can least afford it.
I could go on… but I’m preaching to the choir here.
Littledavid,
In case you’ve forgotten, Ron Paul was a Republican.
Also, in case you have forgotten, I present to you the Republican creed.:
* That the free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice.
* That all individuals are entitled to equal rights, justice, and opportunities and should assume their responsibilities as citizens in a free society.
* That fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraints must be exercised at all levels of government.
* That the Federal Government must preserve individual liberty by observing constitutional limitations.
* That peace is best preserved through a strong national defense.
* That faith in God, as recognized by our Founding Fathers, is essential to the moral fibre of the Nation.
Now ask yourself who embodied that creed better… John McCain, or Ron Paul? I have issues with Ron Paul, but if I were making an objective judgment, I’d find it hard to consider John McCain a Republican at all.
You never did explain to me why drug use is wrong, but smoking and alcohol consumption are socially acceptable.
Shaun,
I’ll ask you the same question. How does smoking and alcohol use differ significantly from drug use? If we’re speaking of rationality, there is no rational reason to differentiate between extremely addictive drugs. If we are, as you say, preventing irrational behavior… why are you not pushing for the banning of cigarettes?
If the argument applies to one, it should apply to the other. Libertarians and libertarians tend to take the logical, Constitutional approach by saying that your life and your body are your business if you want to destroy them.
That’s what you seem to be missing. It isn’t that libertarians want to go out and do drugs (I assure you, I have no interest. Never have.)… it’s that they recognize that the Constitution doesn’t give them the right to tell YOU not to do drugs.
Chad P:
An explanation of “why” isn’t terribly useful. It just isn’t. That is the state of affairs and the cards on the table. Realigning it is a form of social engineering that I seriously doubt many professed libertarians would care to embark upon… or as the joke/criticism goes, drug legalization is the one topic that turns a libertarian into a socialist.
With some drugs (nicotine or caffiene) there are no instantaneous side effects per se. As for alcohol, the moment you use it to excess, the state rightfully intervenes. In the event of THC (which is really what legalization proponents want — to smoke pot), the effects are indeed immediate, do impair the user, do have long term effects, and do put not only others at risk (drive and smoke pot?) but the user as well (tar, coating of receptors in the brain, and the gateway to other hard drug use).**
Drug abuse (not mere use — see below) is problematic because when the behavior becomes abusive, it turns an otherwise rational actor into an irrational one. Moreover, there is a social impact to any form of license that takes advantage of liberties, and that social cost must be picked up by someone; family, friends, or at the very worst a government nanny state (or an avuncular state — another pet evil)
With other drugs, there is no “recreational” amount of crack, heroin, cocaine, PCP, acid, MDMA, THC, crank, opium, horse tranqilizer, methamphetamine, amphetamine, barbituate, freon, acetone, China White, codeine, Valium, LSD, speed, or peyote that has no side effects — and in all cases reduce the user’s reasoning faculties.
Now I am more than happy to be enlightened with a rational, reasoned explanation of why these drugs should be permitted by a free society, and why that definition doesn’t stray into license or some Hobbesian nightmare world of “all against all”.
Now obviously, some drugs have their uses. Heroin for example is used as a local anesthetic. Oxycodone is an excellent drug for the purpose for which it is designed. Alcohol and nicotine have socially acceptable uses. OTOH, some of these same substances are gateways to worse abuses… and force an impact on others (which certainly isn’t a libertarian virtue to be a burden on others).
Only the coldest of libertarian philosophies (Randian) would excise charity towards a fellow human being in the cases where abuse will inevitably occur. So it is with anyone who falls in the trap of an addiction — at some point, someone has to pull those people out. For the libertarian pro-legalization argument to come full circle, it has to respond to the social network sans government that is going to subsidize and help those who inevitably abuse any substance (controlled or otherwise).
J.S. Mill had it best: You can’t sell yourself into slavery. Any addict will agree. As such, the state has the perfect right to proscribe behavior to defend my own rights — life, liberty, and property.
** Need an example that THC leads to hard drug use? The Netherlands is a classic example as the hub of Europe’s heroin trade. In fact, the spiraling costs of marijuana legalization there have helped create a “drug culture” that is costing the government of the Netherlands well beyond what it would cost to fight a “drug war” of their own. Even now, the Dutch government is experimenting (!) with giving heroin users… heroin… just to control the skyrocketing social costs of a permissive drug culture there. One might argue that this is symptomatic of a socialist government’s subsidization of the drug culture, but remove the government and the cost is passed along directly to those who don’t engage in the behavior. Hardly the kind of wealth transfer most free market conservatives or libertarians would endorse.
Chad P:
The U.S. Constitution does offer this as it’s purpose: to “insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”.
When liberty extends into license, and otherwise rational actors impinge upon our rights… that’s when I take exception. That’s when we all take exception, am I right?
Drug abuse creates a social impact that you and I have to absorb. As the state has the authority to proscribe behavior (I’m a natural law Thomist) and our own civil society’s objectives are to:
insure domestic tranquility (check),
provide for the common defense (check again)
promote the general welfare (well being… check)
and secure the blessings of Liberty (liberty, not license… check)
..and the kicker: “to ourselves and our posterity” (check)
I would then argue that the Founding Fathers definition of liberty did not descend into license, but rather revolved around the rationalists of the British and American enlightenment and a deep understanding of natural law (Bellarmine in Jefferson’s case, Sydney in others, and biblical texts for the vast majority).
That’s not an argument for theism… I think it’s an absolute testament to our Founding Fathers that they were such religious men, and yet we did not evolve into a theocracy. Still, their principles were informed by the idea that free men and women were rational actors that deserved the protection (not provision) of the state.
To me… that would involve protecting me and my kids from the guy doped up on PCP and hanging from the electrical wires. Same goes for the guy who peddles that stuff.
Regards,
Little David, it is sadly apparent that you do not know the history of the Republican Party. Please do a little research before telling people what it means to be a Republican. Here are a couple of books to assist you in your pursuit of the truth (I presume you ‘re actually interested in knowing the truth?):
“Reclaiming the American Right” by Justin Raimondo – ISBN 1-933859-60-1
“Ex America” by Garet Garrett – ISBN 0-87004-442-7
Do your homework, then tell me if you’re still interested in being a Republican.
Shaun Kenney,
expanding on your last post… here are the Founding Fathers “Principles of Liberty”
1. The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law.
2. A free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong.
3. The most promising method of securing a virtuous and morally stable people is to elect virtuous leaders.
4. Without religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained.
5. All things were created by God, therefore upon Him all mankind are equally dependent, and to Him they are equally responsible.
6. All men are created equal.
7. The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not provide equal things.
8. Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.
9. To protect man’s rights, God has revealed certain principles of divine law.
10. The God-given right to govern is vested in the sovereign authority of the whole people.
11. The majority of the people may alter or abolish a government which has become tyrannical.
12. The United States of America shall be a republic.
13. A constitution should be structured to permanently protect the people from the human frailties of
their rulers.
14. Life and liberty are secure only so long as the right of property is secure.
15. The highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free market economy and a minimum of government regulations.
16. The government should be separated into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial.
17. A system of checks and balances should be adopted to prevent the abuse of power.
18. The unalienable rights of the people are most likely to be preserved if the principles of government are set forth in in a written constitution.
19. Only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to government, all others being retained in the people.
20. Efficiency and dispatch require government to operate according to the will of the majority, but constitutional provisions must be made to protect the rights of the minority.
21. Strong local self-government is the keystone to preserving human freedom.
22. A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men.
23. A free society cannot survive as a republic without a broad program of general education.
24. A free people will not survive unless they stay strong.
25. “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.”
26. The core unit which determines the strength of any society is the family; therefore, the government should foster and protect its integrity.
27. The burden of debt is as destructive to freedom as subjugation by conquest.
28. The United Stated has a manifest destiny to be an example and a blessing to the entire human race.
There are a lot of people out there who are conservative by nature and who also have little time and/or taste for the reality of party politics. I’m one of them. If the party can find some way to tap into these people by reaching out to them and engaging them without asking for a formal commitment to the party it would go a long way towards engendering goodwill in communities to the party.
Advertise these alternate sources of media. I see a lot of good news and analysis/opinion in the Virginia blogsphere, but so few people know about it, that I’m not sure at times how much of an impact its making. I think it could make a lot more. Its harder to influence people who get a majority of their news from the local/national TV nets from 6:00 to 7:00 PM
Make a strong play in minority communities and not by a wholesale effort based on race. This is more then having a booth at fairs and events. Its going to take a lot of ground work to knock on doors and find out what matters to individuals in their communities and convincing them that they hold many conservative ideals already(latest example- vote on Prop 8 in California). Identify conservatives in those neighborhoods and work with them to expand their network and encourage some of them to run for office.
“Realigning it is a form of social engineering that I seriously doubt many professed libertarians would care to embark upon… or as the joke/criticism goes, drug legalization is the one topic that turns a libertarian into a socialist.”
Absolutely incorrect. Advocating self-responsibility is about as anti-socialist as one can get.
“With some drugs (nicotine or caffiene) there are no instantaneous side effects per se. As for alcohol, the moment you use it to excess, the state rightfully intervenes.”
Again incorrect. If you use alcohol to excess (i.e, you get completely drunk) but you break no laws in doing so… driving while impaired, for example… the state leaves you to your own devices. You’re not punished for the simple act of imbibing; you’re punished for endangering others while impaired.
Compare that to any illegal drug. You’re not punished for putting others at risk, you’re criminalized for intoxicating yourself. Were you to drive while high? You should be rightfully charged with a DUI and sentenced accordingly. Seems pretty sensible to me. Damage to your system from Marijuana? Hey, you get worse from cigarettes.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’ve never done drugs. Never as in never, not even once. Therefore, I’m about as neutral a party as you’re going to find. I have no ulterior motives beyond consistency.
The “gateway drug” idea does to appear to be true, either.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/study-say-marijuana-no-gateway-drug-12116.html
“With other drugs, there is no “recreational” amount of crack, heroin, cocaine, PCP, acid, MDMA, THC, crank, opium, horse tranqilizer, methamphetamine, amphetamine, barbituate, freon, acetone, China White, codeine, Valium, LSD, speed, or peyote that has no side effects — and in all cases reduce the user’s reasoning faculties.”
Sort of like alcohol?
“Alcohol and nicotine have socially acceptable uses.”
Prohibitionists would have disagreed with you, and they went so far as to have the Constitution amended. They used many of the arguments you’re using here to excuse their actions, too… and for their part, they were right about the effects (impairment), risk for addiction (alcoholism), and danger to others (poor judgement).
If we’re arguing health risks, we really ought to be banning nicotine. Need I go into the many health risks of nicotine?
“Now I am more than happy to be enlightened with a rational, reasoned explanation of why these drugs should be permitted by a free society,”
* The effects of these substances are, in the case of THC, cocaine, and opium, well-documented and do not differ significantly from the effects of legal intoxicants in either impairment or health risks.
* Our ancestors in the U.S. used these substances and they seem to have done alright (turned out a pretty good country, didn’t they?)
* The current differentiation between legal and illegal sustances is arbitrary, politically motivated, and absolutely illogical.
* Making these drugs illegal has done nothing to stop the drug trade, and has in fact generated an organized crime syndicate that is many times worse than the intoxication illegalization was meant to prevent.
Shaun Kenney,
Yes I was serious about the legalized prostitution aspect. I travel quite a bit. During my travels I saw (especially in Nevada) quite a few Ron Paul Revolution signs with the letters E V O and L highlighted in pink to show that they spell love backwards.
I did not have a whole lot of problems with what you wrote other then on Social Security. Even if nothing is done to prop up or change Social Security I understand that there will be funds available to pay 78 cents on the dollar for the foreseeable future. If someone wants to start a lengthy debate on Social Security I would hope someone posts a lead article on the subject so we could do so on it under its own thread.
Chosun1,
I describe myself as a moderate. I do not actively wish to become a Republican because if I attempted to do so, I would probably have to put up with being called a RINO. Since I am so independent in my thinking I’m probably better off continuing as an independent who is unafraid of voting for candidates from either party.
However I do desire that the Republicans nominate candidates I can vote for. Actually, I thought Jim Gilmore (for the Senate) was a pretty good candidate, its just that he was running against another fine candidate by the name of Mark Warner.
“The U.S. Constitution does offer this as it’s purpose: to “insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”.”
And then it goes on and says in detail what the federal government can do to meet those ends. If you’d like to talk about the states making drugs illegal (a permissible concept under the strict guidelines of the Constitution), then I willingly accept the premise that each state has the right to make that decision.
We can agree to disagree, though… as this battle is better saved for when/if it comes up. The republicans have other, more important things to look at right now, like a decided lack of fiscal conservatism on the party’s part.
Little David,
I share your moderate status – as in I support the Constitutional Republic our forefathers gave us. I do not believe in, or support the oligarchy we have today. I also share your wish for candidates that I can vote for in good conscience. Any who actually walk the walk of the Virginia Republican creed have my vote.
Chosun1,
I have never read the Virginian Republican Creed. Perhaps you can point me towards it.
I will say that strict adherence to the creed (as observed by the those running under it) will make it more difficult for me to vote for such a candidate.
I’m a little late to this party, but whatever..
@Shaun: you asked a question of another poster along the lines of “what problems do you have with Libertarian philosophy.” Speaking as someone who used to be one, it inherently contradicts itself. You can’t have state authority protecting rights without that very same state authority infringing rights. An oversimplified example is noise pollution, or put succinctly my right to play my music as loud as I want as opposed to your right to peace and quiet. No sooner than you tell me to turn my music down, you’ve chosen liberties, and for no good reason other than tradition.
As you allow that infringement, you’ve gone from protecting all rights to simply disagreeing about the number and character of those rights.
On one last note re: your memo, I’d be strongly pushing Drupal and Joomla over the other options as they leave a lot more room to grow into converged media platforms.
But otherwise that was one great memo…
@Max – I think you’re really on to something with the basic plan you outlined. Too many people are hyper-focused on social networking without paying adequate attention to the integrity of back-office systems and the underlying data. I recently heard my county chairman stand up at a meeting at state that “the data in Voter Vault failed to enable us to turn out our base.” I had but one question. How the hell did that happen? I haven’t seen the schema but do we not have hundreds of behavioral and consumer metrics merged with voter registration records? I suppose we need to figure out where the problem lies first – is it the integrity of the data, the delivery, the usability, etc.? If it’s a data integrity problem then we have a much steeper mountain to climb but as I’m sure you know the delivery and OLAP aspects can be fixed quite easily.
Little David,
Taken from http://www.rpv.org/about/page/republican-party-of-virginia-creed
“We Believe:
That the free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice,
That all individuals are entitled to equal rights, justice, and opportunities and should assume their responsibilities as citizens in a free society,
That fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraints must be exercised at all levels of government,
That the Federal Government must preserve individual liberty by observing Constitutional limitations,
That peace is best preserved through a strong national defense,
That faith in God, as recognized by our Founding Fathers is essential to the moral fiber of the Nation.”
Leave your response