Gregg withdraws self from Commerce Secretary

[longeyes]

Micro,

I agree with you that the liberals are not the only ones who are not living "in reality."  My view is that we are at war politically, and if we don't fully grasp the repercussions of that we will be slowly but surely eliminated.

[Waitone]

The problem is that American conservatives (and, as I often notice, conservatives in other countries, too), are insufficiently aggressive.

Ding, Ding, Ding.  Big hand for the winner!  My sainted Mama (oh, was that woman a saint) drummed into my head "Waitone, live and let live".  Good, solid advice in a bygone era.  Today we have any number of social predators roaming the political landscape.  Predators who recognize no boundaries in their zeal to create their own utopia.  Live and let live is a dangerous means of social regulation in today's world.  Freedom loving individuals had better get it through their heads that they have to be predators.  They have to get aggressive in pushing their agenda.  They have to push back and push back hard.  Only when freedom loving citizens take the fight into the very kitchen of the left will there be any evidence of salvaging of the situation. 

Will push back occur?  Most likely.

What will push back look like?  A lot like the tactics of the statists.

Recent examples of push back?  Michael Savage strongly hinted he intends to work civil suits against those who would seek to deny him of his constitutional rights.  No doubt he is preparing for the fairness doctrine fights.

Will there be a tipping point for freedom loving citizens in the move from "live and let live" to "I here and I'm in your kitchen"?  I predict the forthcoming attempt to muzzle talk radio and the internet.  What we are about to see in glorious detail the lack of any protection from the opposition party (as weak and unreliable a reed as the party is).  I predict we will clearly see that there is no political redemption apart from down and dirty combat with the statists.

[longeyes]

We are in the anteroom of shock and awe.  Right now it's all still very civilized, but it's clear, to me at least, that the American Left will not stop until they have pushed their antagonists against the wall.  I think the Left is comprised of bullies who will end the way most bullies do.

The two canaries in the mineshaft remain the muzzling of talk radio and draconian gun control.  When and if those two canaries are snuffed, we will have moved into terra incognita in America.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I think I've stated the problem quite succintly.

The problem is that American conservatives (and, as I often notice, conservatives in other countries, too), are insufficiently aggressive.

No, the problem is that your side is too aggressive.  Aimlessly aggressive. Overzealous.  You think that if we don't try to achieve everything we want, all at once, then we aren't trying hard enough.

That's dumb.

No, that's worse than dumb.  That's harmful to our cause.

You don't move the political process all at once.  You move it incrementally, a little bit at a time.   It's a slow process, plodding.  It isn't sexy or satisfying to do things this way, but this is the only way that works.  Short of a violent revolution, the political process always moves slowly here.

Until you grasp this deep down in your soul, and until you and tailor your actions accordingly, you will not make any progress towards our goals.  You will remain marginalized and ineffective.  The average member of the voting public will see you as an unreasoned fanatic (probably a fair assessment).  Success in the political arena requires more maturity than that.

You want liberty in your lifetime, right?  You'll get it this way or not at all.

[Manedwolf]

No, the problem is that your side is too aggressive.  Aimlessly aggressive. Overzealous.  You think that if we don't try to achieve everything we want, all at once, then we aren't trying hard enough.

That's dumb.

No, that's worse than dumb.  That's harmful to our cause.

You don't move the political process all at once.  You move it incrementally, a little bit at a time.   It's a slow process, plodding.  It isn't sexy or satisfying to do things this way, but this is the only way that works.  Short of a violent revolution, the political process always moves slowly here.

Until you grasp this deep down in your soul, and until you and tailor your actions accordingly, you will not make any progress towards our goals.  You will remain marginalized and ineffective.  The average member of the voting public will see you as an unreasoned fanatic (probably a fair assessment).  Success in the political arena requires more maturity than that.

You want liberty in your lifetime, right?  You'll get it this way or not at all.

That is precisely what happened in my state. The "free state" carpetbaggers who did the "in your face" bit are now regarded as annoying gadflys that everyone wants to go away. To the point that there's actual cheering in the paper comments (from conservatives, yet) whenever some get arrested for yet another asinine stunt, with question as to why they can't just keep them locked up, please? Others regard them as militia-type terrorists for their support of the violent tax cheats who threatened to kill law enforcement. The only thing they've accomplished is to get arrested on a weekly basis, making the cops and everyone else hate them. They also completely embarrassed the state and the city of Manchester on national news during the primaries, and in a state full of political junkies, that's not forgotten.

Yeah, that was really effective.

[Perd Hapley]

I agree with both sides.  The Republicans are insufficiently aggressive, but that doesn't mean they should be out-and-out fanatics.  It just means they should push harder.  If conservatism and/or libertarianism could achieve and sustain a half-way point between HTG and MicroB, we might see some significant victories.

Micro, if you had stated your point a little differently, I don't think I would have disagreed with you.  I'm still trying to figure out what our reaction to Gregg has to do with Manedwolf's point that "smart conservatives will be waiting to put out the fire."  He didn't say moderate Republicans would roll back everything that had been done by the Democrats.  He simply said that "smart conservatives" would be waiting to put out fires.  Then he gave an example of a smart conservative (Reagan).  Since you like Reagan, wouldn't you agree he was a "smart conservative" that "put out fires"?

Maybe you just fell victim to the common mistake of needlessly quoting the last comment in a thread.   

[MicroBalrog]

No, the problem is that your side is too aggressive.  Aimlessly aggressive. Overzealous.  You think that if we don't try to achieve everything we want, all at once, then we aren't trying hard enough.

That is not what I said, is it?

I'm all on board with walking before we run. However, it is key here to remember that a lot of people can and will use this to (spreading the metaphor a bit further) as an excuse to lie down and stay in one place, because hey, we can't run yet.

I do not believe that everybody who is 'driving slower than me' is an idiot. I admire people who are driving slower than me in the right direction. Bringing up the last primaries, I have no problem with, say, Fred Thompson or Mike Huckabee. The problem I have is with people who have turned the car around and are moving in the opposite direction.

Of course, I will always be wanting to drive faster, but that's not the point here.

The important thing here is to admit our end-goal. The end-goal is that we want to create a society radically different from what we have now. That what we have now is morally untenable. If we refuse to admit this, even to ourselves, then we are caught within a conundrum. On one hand, we want stuff that's essentialyl revolutionary  - a repeal of the progressive income tax, for instance – while clinging to an Edward Burke-era notion that we can do this while maintaining the status quo.

If we refuse to confront the system on moral grounds, to admit that it is immoral, then we will fail.

This is why people like Gregg are problematic – they acquiesce to the status quo and do not wish to kill Leviathan, they just want him to be a conservative Leviathan, with five-year penalties to drug use and the pork projects going to stuff they like rather than stuff that the Democrats like.

These people are not driving slower than us. They're removing the wheels from the car.

Yeah, that was really effective.

Richard. Anthony. Heller Yes, that's really effective.
And I'm sure if FSP was so bad,  Dan Itse (or any sane politician) wouldn't associate himself with them by attending their events, and neither would Benson. I know that you live in New Hampshire and probably know more about the state than I do, but you're not the only person I know who lives in the state, and not everybody tells the same story.
Also, I find it ironic that you comment about FSP being bad here and enthuse about the bill that Itse sponsored in the other thread, nevermind how Itse makes appearances at FSP events and the Director for Political Action at the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance, an organisation effectively joined at the hip with the Project, to the point that it is headed by Dawn Lincoln. Yeah... so utterly ineffective and useless.

I'm sure everybody hates them. And there will be riots during the Obama inauguration.

[MicroBalrog]

P.S. Mind, I suspect seriously that with the proper marketing and election strategy, even a radical conservalibertarian candidate might be able to win a major election.