More Homeless
Jul. 25th, 2005 02:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenite0I'm still keeping an eye out for a political group I could call home. There's definitely others who agree with me, including other self-proclaimed libertarian hawks, the Anti-Idiotarians, and the Party of the West (I think this is the best summary of the principles we agree on). The last link also has some discussion on how to organize, but the consensus seemed to be that none of us had the time/energy to take that on.
There are some groups that have a presence in the primaries without taking social-conservative stances, such as CLOUT and the Club For Growth. Unfortunately they seem to be single-issue groups on cutting taxes. Club For Growth says they're for "limited government" but I couldn't find anything on their site taking a stand on the Supreme Court decision on eminent domain. I'm sure taxes could get really low if the government just paid people by handing them fully built houses confiscated from former owners. I think "expanding freedom" is a better focus than lowering taxes.
One place where I might find like-minded people is in the movement to draft Condi Rice as a presidential candidate. Those seem to be folks who want an aggressive war policy but less government interference in our personal lives. Now whether Secretary Rice agrees with that domestic agenda is an unknown. It's also not that likely that she'll run, no matter how hard people try to draft her. Secretary of State is a full-time job, she'd have to quit to run a campaign. She's never run for an elected office before and would probably make some rookie mistakes. There's also going to be an incredible amount of personal abuse, at least an order of magnitude more than she's already gotten.
On the other hand--if she's running with Bush's blessing as his successor she might get the Republican nomination with a minimum of nastiness in the primaries. There'd be a Christian fundamentalist running against her which would probably make her look even more like a centrist. Imagine a centrist running for President--might even be the first one in twenty years to get more than 52% of the vote. The results depend on who the Dems nominate, of course. But that could lead to another lovely scenario--if Senator Clinton gets the nomination the US gets its first female president whoever wins.
There are some groups that have a presence in the primaries without taking social-conservative stances, such as CLOUT and the Club For Growth. Unfortunately they seem to be single-issue groups on cutting taxes. Club For Growth says they're for "limited government" but I couldn't find anything on their site taking a stand on the Supreme Court decision on eminent domain. I'm sure taxes could get really low if the government just paid people by handing them fully built houses confiscated from former owners. I think "expanding freedom" is a better focus than lowering taxes.
One place where I might find like-minded people is in the movement to draft Condi Rice as a presidential candidate. Those seem to be folks who want an aggressive war policy but less government interference in our personal lives. Now whether Secretary Rice agrees with that domestic agenda is an unknown. It's also not that likely that she'll run, no matter how hard people try to draft her. Secretary of State is a full-time job, she'd have to quit to run a campaign. She's never run for an elected office before and would probably make some rookie mistakes. There's also going to be an incredible amount of personal abuse, at least an order of magnitude more than she's already gotten.
On the other hand--if she's running with Bush's blessing as his successor she might get the Republican nomination with a minimum of nastiness in the primaries. There'd be a Christian fundamentalist running against her which would probably make her look even more like a centrist. Imagine a centrist running for President--might even be the first one in twenty years to get more than 52% of the vote. The results depend on who the Dems nominate, of course. But that could lead to another lovely scenario--if Senator Clinton gets the nomination the US gets its first female president whoever wins.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Bin Laden's Fatwa
Date: 2005-07-27 09:11 am (UTC)Wasn't U.S. policy in the Cold War to fight Communism in every part of the world? Did that mean we were trying to impose capitalism on others or was it just the only way to keep Communism from imposing itself on us?
Re: Bin Laden's Fatwa
Date: 2005-07-27 03:42 pm (UTC)Our current troubles could probably have been averted if we had done some imposing of democracy on our allies. But given what Soviet nukes could do to our country, and what Communist governments have done to their people, I'm glad our leaders focused on winning the war they were in instead of worrying too much about the next one.