What Political Party should I support ?

[Plato]

The current tricks being played in Austin over the Parking Lot Bill 730, has me feeling pretty sick about my longtime support for the Republican Party. I mean I expect this type of thing from Democrats, but for the Texas House that is under Republican control to be thwarting the will of the people and not even allowing the Parking Lot bill to get to a vote -speaks volumes to how little they value my support.

So where do I go next ?

[Liberty]

Libertarian Party.
We believe that
"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"
That the smaller the government the better the government
That the government doesn't have much business being involved with in the family. In the bedroom or in our own homes.
We as individuals have the right to personal freedom and privacy.

Be aware though that the NRA and TSRA will pretend that we don't exist.

[TheArmedFarmer]

+1 on Libertarian.

Or, don't vote.

[Oldgringo]

I voted for Ron Paul in the primary. A no-vote is a yes-vote for whom you disfavor the most.

[nitrogen]

Don't support political parties, support candidates.

Generally I like libertarians on about every issue except economic issues, and hope one day I can see one in office.

[Keith B]

Party lines have become so convoluted these days that I don't really support one vs. another. While I tend to lean toward a conservative Republican side, I take into consideration the views and beliefs of the individual, no matter what party they are affiliated with. I think if I believed in someone's views and platform strongly enough, I might even vote for them even if they were a member of the Stalin Party. LOL

[A-R]

Don't support political parties, support candidates.

.... look at how much traction our cause is getting the US Senate right now because of Democrats who SUPPORT gun rights. I'm not good with the names, but the big guy with the crew cut from Montana and the female senator from NY who replaced Clinton both immediately come to mind. Not to mention Harry Reid, who supports gun rights in most cases.

Especially in places with a strong liberal bias (like Austin ... or California, New York, etc) electing an admitted "conservative" or God forbid a "Republican" can be nearly impossible. So it's important in such areas to support otherwise liberal candidate who agree with us on the gun issue. I'll take a gun supporting liberal Democrat over a RINO any day (if those are my only two choices). And having gun supporters on the left side of the aisle can seriously help when the vote counting gets tight - just look at the Credit Card/National Park bill.

[stevie_d_64]

I would go with what political party supports your views instead of it being the other way around...

I don't know any Libertarian elected officials...They usually have a "D", "R" or an "I" after their names...

That doesn't mean I do not like what some of the "L's" do or stand for...

[tesla]

Speaking of what to support, take a look at this op-ed from the WSJ, as well as the follow up article in Forbes. This constitutional law professor from Georgetown is suggesting that instead of enacting "sovereignty resolutions" as has been done, for example, in Texas and Montana, the states should invoke a constitutional convention under Article V of the constitution for the purpose of enacting "Federalism Amendments."

Very interesting stuff, and worth a read.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1 ... DMxWj.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/20/bill-o ... rnett.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[74novaman]

Don't support political parties, support candidates.

Generally I like libertarians on about every issue except economic issues, and hope one day I can see one in office.

Wow, I actually agree with Nitrogen!

You need to look at their individual voting records, as both sides put up some real duds for office sometimes. If you don't like the type of candidate any party is putting out, time to start getting involved in the primary process and working hard to nominate candidates who reflect your views.

Or, heaven forbid, run yourself. I could never do that last part so I'm stuck complaining about those who do run.

[74novaman]

Speaking of what to support, take a look at this op-ed from the WSJ, as well as the follow up article in Forbes. This constitutional law professor from Georgetown is suggesting that instead of enacting "sovereignty resolutions" as has been done, for example, in Texas and Montana, the states should invoke a constitutional convention under Article V of the constitution for the purpose of enacting "Federalism Amendments."

Very interesting stuff, and worth a read.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1 ... DMxWj.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/20/bill-o ... rnett.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I would be terrified to see a Constitutional Convention right now. Who would get nominated to go? Pelosi? Reed? Frank? Dodd?

If they got to start over with a clean slate, who knows that would happen....

[megs]

Don't support political parties, support candidates.

+1

Don't believe the lies about wasting your vote by voting for the best candidate!

[Frost]

The republicans and democrats are both committed to expanding government power and the American people refuse to consider alternatives. There is not much hope as long as that continues.

[tesla]

I would be terrified to see a Constitutional Convention right now. Who would get nominated to go? Pelosi? Reed? Frank? Dodd?

If they got to start over with a clean slate, who knows that would happen....

Agreed, it is not without inherent dangers, but I've not seen any other suggestions that have any real chance of stopping the progression of statism that has continued since the '30s, and that is a certain and continuing danger.

As to starting over with a clean slate, I don't think there would be any support at all for tossing out the current constitution and starting over. Remember that the convention of 1787 was specifically charged with "revising" the articles of confederation, not with "amending" them as is proposed in this case. Our constitution has admirably stood the test of time, and there is no way that the states would ratify any radical rewrite.

On the issue of the composition of delegates, a convention that was called due to a grass roots 10th amendment type movement is unlikely to nominate hard core statists. The convention would never even happen if those types were in the majority, since they would be opposed to it even being called in the first place. The only way a convention would get off the ground is if there was a majority of states in favor of resetting the balance between state and federal power, and thus a majority of delegates charged with that specific mission.

Finally, a convention might not even be necessary, since the credible threat of such a move would in itself act to limit and perhaps roll back the excesses of congress and the judiciary.

I think this is a very interesting proposal that may turn out to have some staying power/resonance.

[bryang]

Don't support political parties, support candidates.

Generally I like libertarians on about every issue except economic issues, and hope one day I can see one in office.

I am pretty well fed up with both political parties you can not tell the difference between a dem or rep, neither stand for anything anymore.

-geo