I have read much that indicates that Bill and Hillary only got together (and stay together) for political expediency. They knew that the American public in general overwhelmingly favor political candidates who present themselves as the traditional married couple with kids. But I don't for a minute believe that they see each other as anything more than a tool to something else.

I have to feel sorry for Chelsea. Every kid deserves to believe that they were the product of parents who loved each other - even those who later got divorced.

I was referring to Bill. I remember one of the complaints about him was he would bend whatever way the political winds were blowing. Hillary wouldn't as much but I still think the 2 couples actually hate each other.

I read the book awhile back and thought it was well-written and persuasive. I would recommend it, especially in the current political context.

I can't argue on specifics right now, because it's been too long since I read it. But I've been meaning to get it out and read it again, so hopefully this will become a "hot" thread. It deserves to be, whichever side you're on. Then I hope to comment further...

If you are talking about Bill Clinton being a centrist, I might agree. If you're talking about Hillary, however, I'd challenge you to seriously re-think that assertion. Hillary is a rabid Saul Alinsky disciple. Bill is a self-centered skirt-chaser.

I completely agree with you regarding the Republicans, however. The voters WANT the Tea Party-style candidates, as has been shown for ten years. They want the basic principles of limited government which establishment Republicans seem much more willing to discard in favor of political power and appeasement of the media and Democrats.

I bought and read the book a couple of months ago and I have to admit, I wasn't overly impressed. The book does a good job of describing some of the existing internal battles within the Republican Party, but misses some real issues and problems by concentrating so much on salvaging the party. Saving, revising, reforming, however they wish to couch the discussions will have no effect other than to satisfy some that want their party to be on top like a Seattle Seahawks fan on the Super Bowl. And discussing something called 'political philosophy', an oxymoron if I've ever seen one, get's us nowhere.

Its the parties themselves that are the problem. It doesn't matter who, with what goals gains control of the party. The parties are outside of the law and the Constitution which is not structured to limit and control such entities. The parties will always result in an 'us vs them' situation amongst the populace, will always provide for an additional split of 'the political class vs the populace' situation, and furthers a corporate/government partnership vs the populace arrangement. At best the party structure can only lead to compromise which concept AR despised.

Additionally, the 'hidden' government of the bureaucracies and technocracies that are essentially self managed and controlled entities again outside of the Constitution, and the government employment unionization with work rules and the impossibility of firing or disciplining known or discovered malfeasance, and as subject to lobbying and the revolving door employment between corporate/special interest foundations/regulated businesses--all in opposition to the interest of the citizenry.

Much could also be discussed about the need to remove the financial/power sources and incentives of taxes and fees and licenses again imposed at all levels of government outside of the Constitutional framework and controls.

In short, the book falls short for me.

okay, then how do we "make" people do "take the task seriously"? If they did, would there be any need for such endless discussion when so very few grasp the essential principles of Liberty?

there is such a thing as a proper government with checks and balances. Those must be adhered to. The people muct take take the task seriously

Harding was one of the more corrupt and less competent presidents. Do you remember Teapot Dome?

Eisenhower definitely comes in third amongst the presidents since 1900 after Reagan and Coolidge. I will grant that point.

I agree with you artswavn. I think we are stuck with a 2 party system, consisting of 'black boxes' labeled with the aforementioned names. This does not keep the content of the 'black boxes' from shifting - or even reversing. (This has happened in the past.)

I think we have to redefine the content of 'Republican', vote people into office who will make even some incremental increases to our protection from government abuse, and gradually work our way up the Constitutional food chain until we have a functional 21st century Constitution in place.

Jan

A far better question would be
Can mankind create GOVERNments of Force and submit to their Rulers, and expect to be truly FREE?

The important thing is not to back down. No Republican can win any more unless he is acceptable to libertarians. Ann Coulter and her ilk will simply have to adjust to that reality.

I wouldn't go that far. Harding and Eisenhower were reasonably pro-freedom presidents. Harding ended a depression quickly by cutting federal spending, and Ike very sensibly turned down an invitation to go to war with Egypt. And Ike's one major spending program, the Interstate highways, actually made sense and is constitutional.

We (wife & I) have toyed with the idea of dropping the GOP. But then --- will we vote with the 'DEM's' -- NO, can't do that.
What to do -- 'work to form the 'REP'S' into what they USED TO BE........
Seems to be the only way - for now -

For some reason that I cannot understand, the established solons of the GOP have sent up perceived middle-of-the-road candidates who have lost. Twice. Looking at the past governor and senator races, we see that the conservative candidates who would be more acceptable to the Gulch, have been the winning candidates. Are they so thick-headed that they blind themselves to truths they don't want to exist? Sure looks that way.

I've been working on my IRS taxes.
There's a little box you check if you want to contribute $3 to the presidential election.
I'm wondering if I actually did that between the two terms Reagan was in office.
That could conceivably be the only time.
Since then I have once upon a time occasionally responded to a GOP fund raising requests with small amounts of money.
Once upon a time is a long time ago. Now I look upon unopened envelopes with disgust before tossing them into File 13.
I snail mail joined the Tea Party and donated some money.
A couple of months later I received an email request to join the Tea Party.
Now I wonder if someone takes Caribbean family cruises with any of that dough.

Hear, hear!!

I think the Republican Party needs to disengage itself from social issues that should not be the purview of government in the first place. They are like the Democrats in that they see the Constitution backwards. It does not spell out what we can do, it limits what the government can do about it. Freedom of religion means that the government cannot interfere with how we do or do not worship. What we call civil rights and gay rights were already addressed in the Preamble.
Armies and police are there to protect our rights and to defend us from those that would violate them. I have a hard time justifying "sting" operations where police entice someone into a crime then arrest them for it because they are the type that might commit a crime. I have a hard time with attacking other nations because they might attack us. I have a hard time using force to ensure fairness much less for making up for the sins of our forefathers.
Other than providing judges for resolving contractual disputes I can't see what government has to do with commerce. Wherever government uses its force, corruption results. Cronyism is the destroyer of the economy but it is like the sting because it entices businesses to take the bait and then damns them for it but not refusing the personal and political gifts that it brings.
Both parties are equally guilty despite what they say because what they say is not what they do anyway. The belief that Republicans can form a coalition that would lead to freedom is based on some of what they say that Democrats don't even give lip service to but there is no evidence that they have ever believed their own BS.

Well, in all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about. Hell yeah! I'm for debating anything.
Stephen Hopkins, "1776"

Freedom has not won in the Republican Party since at least 1896 except for when Ronald Reagan won and perhaps when Calvin Coolidge won.

He did, it was the first listing.

my pleasure. I think db reviewed it. I'm trying to find that, and I'll post.

did you take a point from me? lol
let's see if we can get a couple of the authors to come in and address your points freedom.

Looks interesting. There is definitely a fight going on between the TEA party candidates and the establishment. I keep hearing the mantra that we have to put up candidates that can win. This is futile if they don't do what we expect when they get to Washington. I am wondering if anyone will cover the war in the Democratic party. I am convinced that Clinton was somewhat of a centrist and Obama is a Socialist. Having won 2 terms I think the far left wing of the Democratic Party are reluctant to see Hillary carry the torch forward. Funny how a little e-mail scandal brings more indignation than Benghazi. Interesting to watch.

Looks like a good book. Thanks!

The GOP has never been a force for individual liberty, just a fradulent facade hiding an agenda for statist power. The Republican Party already had their "civil war" and it diminished individual liberty, killed 600,000 Americans, destroyed half the free market economy, taxed half the people to benefit a small number of the elite, and suppressed the rights of all living in the southern states for 40 years. Stop listening to GOP propaganda.