I'll dream along with you.

Scott Walker, mainly because of the work he did in Wisconsin on their budget and standing up to their unions. Maybe he can stop the rush to a greater deficit compliments of Obama. The dimocrats pull the "He doesn't have a college degree" out of their hat trying their best to find anything to throw at him and change the subject. Maybe they should talk to Bill Gates about being a success without a degree. Worth mentioning is the fact that we have no solid proof that Obama has a degree. Supposedly he has, but he has blocked all attempts to learn about his past. Can we be sure he has one after suffering through six years of his lies? Maybe what we’ve learned and seen about him is enough.

Along with Scott Walker I'd like to have Ted Cruz because he's able to give it back in spades to the Dimocrats and marginalize them. The DNC tried to attack him over his recent speech where he said the world is on fire. Saying he had terrified a young girl (thanks to the New York Times) was quickly shown to be a lie. When interviewed she showed that she was not terrified of anything he had said and even called him Uncle Ted.

The GOP needs a fighter, not a crybaby and not one that caves in continuously. Maybe one that would start impeachment proceedings.

Eudaimonia: You got that right!!

I have thought that eventually the TEA party groups would grow tired of the GOP establishment and start their own party. I don't think it's a good idea but it could happen.

The major parties' biggest source of money are cronyist companies -- the ones in the Chambers of Commerce -- many of whom donate equal sums to Ds and Rs just so the winner will listen the next time the business wants a favor. I'd like to make a list of companies like that, nationwide, and start a boycott of them.

Who's with me?

What would be the point of yet another Libertarian or Constitution Party? Those two should have merged by now.

A Republican who will massively increase spending is nothing more than a Democrat in sheep's clothing. The GOP leadership needs to be taught that nominating someone like that doesn't win general elections. We may need to beat them over the head with a few more examples, but sooner or later they'll get it.

Exactly why Jeb Bush can't be the nominee.

Ross Perot's 12% did indeed have exactly that result in 1992, which is why I would like to see us with Australian (preferential) voting. But I would argue the problem becomes less important the farther the GOP moves away from liberty. If the Republican is going to increase spending anyway, then I might as well vote LP because a Republican president would continue moving the ball toward the wrong goal line.

I like the idea in principle, but the LP has major PR problems of its own (#1 being its unwillingness to purge obvious loonies, who then get all the media attention). That's why I'm registered independent.

As for the GOP, I believe it can be saved -- mostly because its hostility to liberty is strictly a generational thing. ALL of the party's potential leaders who are under 30 appear to be libertarians. As the older generation die off, they will get control, just as the anti-abortion and anti-gay elements of that party have already lost, permanently, by dying off. (Libertarians are already enough of the GOP's membership that it will never win another presidency with a candidate who isn't acceptable to libertarians.)

I like GB, but he is one of a few who judge others on not being "conservative enough" and as a result about 3M Repus didn't vote last elections because they thought Romney was not conservative enough. We ended up with BHO again. So right about now the Dems are smiling ear to ear in expectation of 2016 while Repubs stab each other on their backs. On the other hand some Dems vote Democrat because that's what they've done all their lives. My mother in law talks like a republican about issues, but has always voted Democrat in her 14 presidents lifetime because that's what she's done all her life. If Hillary runs, she'll vote for her even if she's a compulsive liar. If Elizabeth Warren runs she'll vote for her even if she's a socialist. Hell, if Putin was a registered Democrat she would vote for him. Could it be an illness?

I used to argue with people who said there was no difference between the parties. Now I agree completely.

He has a large following. Not sure how much damage this will do.

Over the years Beck has "outed" himself from the GOP several times. This time, it was with maximum drama in order to prove his points. Very valid points at that. It is why I remain unaffiliated. Here in Florida it prevents participation in the nomination process so if the person(s) running are very special I'll become a Republican. Hasn't happened yet.

Beck did the only thing he could do. Their is not a speck of difference between the two, communist infiltrated, parties. We have outwardly declared Dems. who admit to being socialist one worlders, and we have RINO Republicans who are wimpy enablers of one world finance and government. They left most of us with no representation. Why give them our money or support when they will not reciprocate?

did you really just call OA a dick?

I am restating what you said. You attend democratic fundraisers for powerful, connected, democrat presidential candidates to network. Now, you walk that statement back. I point out that rationally, it's in one's interest to support candidates which are more in line with free markets, less government, proper government and more liberty-and apparently I am a dick for suggesting that. up is down

I took a similar path. I changed my affiliation to Libertarian about the same time but find I vote mostly republican. The TEA party candidates have been a step up but the establishment is pushing back hard against them.

Excellent. I think these Senators and Reps do pay attention when they get calls and e-mails. Their focus usually is on re-election so if we make them nervous maybe something will happen.

I've already called my Senator (Heller) and told him how that I'm disappointed in how he's been caving in to the republican establishment. I've also written to my representative (Hardy R-NV) and told him that we expected something from this election, and if we don't see it, we're only a year away from another one. I challenge others to make their voices heard, not just to other like minded individuals, but to the ones we should be holding accountable.

Not a lot of difference at this point. I'm wondering if Beck wants to start a third party???

I decided many years ago to be independent. I think it was when they selected the globalist Bush (the elder), to succeed after the great President Reagan. Then 8 years of the philanderer Clinton and OMG, another Bush for another 8. Now, with the Constitution Killer Obama in there. I am becoming very antipathetic about politicians in general. Don't get me wrong, there are some good ones but they all seem to be cut down and pillorized by the left, the media and the RINO's. So, with the members of the Big Government Party (the Establishment) ruling over the Republicans, I am glad that I gave up on them as a member. I still usually vote for Republicans, just because I cannot stomach to vote for a Progressive Democrat. If the Republican doesn't pass the smell test, I won't vote for him by leaving it blank or writing in someone who I think would be better.

Does it even matter what party one claims to be in? All I really know is I am not a Dumocrat!

There you go again. Can't support your actions with rational thought so you place blame elsewhere. This is about your actions and your decisions conflicting with your stated goals. Your program of voting for statists to achieve liberty is nonsense. If you have a rational explanation for this irrational behavior then state it now.

What is the value to any individual voter of voting for a candidate who will win? {or not voting for one who will NOT win?}
Do you want the glory of being able to say "MY candidate won!"
What does it achieve?