I have stated many of the problems I have had with the Republican party lately in various topics. For the most part it comes down to the party talking the platform but not following it in practice.

I decided to write a letter about it. I wrote to every feedback link I could find for the RNC, the MO. GOP, and the Republican Liberty Caucus.

In the letter I pointed out that I had not paid any "dues" or made any donations for 2004, and went on to say that this was due to the various problems I had with the party and went on to list them.

I continued by saying that my vote for President was seriously in question and that I was considering the possibility of leaving the GOP all together for a third party.

I then asked for their input and advice.

I received a letter back from a representative of the Liberty Caucus that said that I was right in my concerns and the RLC needs people like me to help fight to get the party back on track.

I replied saying that from what I could see, it might be easier to start from scratch and create a new party then to try to turn the GOP around.

The reply I got basically said that if that is how I feel then I should do it (for the record the writer was VERY nice about it).

Even more troublesome to me is that the other 39 or so people I wrote to did not bother to reply at all.

Based on the lack of response I have received I feel like libertarian minded conservatives are no longer welcome in the party.

Another debate site, one specifically for Republicans actually banned me. I can only assume it was for my views because as anyone who has dealt with me on AD will likely say, I do my best to keep a debate on topic and away from personal attacks and the like.

The questions I have to ask are:

Do you believe the Republican party is following the platform in practice when you consider recent issues that have been voted on in congress?

Do you believe that the Republican party welcome libertarians or would the party prefer we went elsewhere?

Is anyone else out there also considering leaving the GOP? If so, why and to where?

If even 5% of the GOP left for a third party and voted for that party rather then voted for Bush do you think that would cost him the election?

Do you believe the Republican party is following the platform in practice when you consider recent issues that have been voted on in congress?

Honestly, for some odd reason, I only have a couple of problems with the Republicans this election year. I did push the panic button with what seemed to me Bush's spending spree on a couple of bills/policies and his Mars project, but I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. When you have concerns, you write to local, state, and Washington representatives. You may not get replies (I have more from my AZ representatives: McCain, Kyl, and Kolbe...hard to find more dedicated men!) I too have mailed letters and sent emails to the RNC Chairman. I am on their email list with alerts and updates and I visit the RNC and GOP.com web sites regularly. And go to conservative alerts.com and sign up for email alerts and a chance to email officials from their web site for free. With the vast volume of correspondence, I am more surprised if I receive a reply than if I don't. But they have clerks who keep track of volume per topics and I do feel that major concerns are addressed or considered. And, it lets you get it off your chest. You might visit your local Republican Headquarters in person and talk to someone.

Do you believe that the Republican party welcome libertarians or would the party prefer we went elsewhere?

Were you aware of the Republican REGGIE bus that launched on March 4th this year and will crisscross the country with the goal of registering 3 million new voters by Election Day. Unless something unforseen happens, this is going to be another close election, and the Republicans desperately need and I would think welcome crossover voters with open arms.

Is anyone else out there also considering leaving the GOP? If so, why and to where?

No, it would have to take a most unusual leader running for President for me to vote for a Democrat or third party. And, it would take something extraordinary for me to consider leaving the Republican party. My first time to vote was for John Kennedy and the last time I voted for a Democrat. Would I hold my nose and vote for someone just to vote Republican? No, I just would not vote period which would break my long and steady voting record...and my heart.

You seem to be unhappy and confused as to what you should do. May I recommend an old time solution called The Ben Franklin Close which can be used by every one and at any time to resolve indecision or to put things into perspective. Take a legal size sheet of paper, draw a line down the middle, put the headings For and Against or Pros and Cons at the top of each column. Then begin to list all the pros and cons for staying with and/or leaving the Republican party (doesn't matter if your list takes up two or three legal sheets). Then weigh the pros against the cons and see whether your perspective is a bit more realistic or workable. Hope it helps you out...don't do a mental check...actually write it out.

If even 5% of the GOP left for a third party and voted for that party rather then voted for Bush do you think that would cost him the election?

Can't say for sure now, but I do believe Election 2004 is going to be oh so close that even Nader's votes could upset the apple cart for someone. Awesome!

Good luck, overlandsailor and the answer will come to you in due time, I am sure.

My suggestion would be to do what I do: Work with both the Republicans, especially the RLC people, and the Libertarian Party. I'm been doing that for twenty-plus years and nobody seems to mind. One GOP Congressman, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has even run for President on the LP ticket, and hasn't had any problems because of it. That he votes on principle gets him in more trouble than that ever did. I see no benefit to giving up either the GOP or the LP where they can be useful.

General Colin Powell described the Republican Party as having a "big tent" and I think he was right. There is room in the GOP for a variety of people with different philosophies, concerns and ideas on how things should work. It's a difficult thing sometimes to get a handle on and truly understand what makes a person think they are a Republican. Heck, even the liberals can't figure it out and they are the smartest people on the planet! Just ask them. So, they invent new words like "neo-conservative" which doesn't really mean anything, but when liberals can't figure something out, they invent an explanation. I'm thinking the ancient Greeks who invented a God to explain the sun rising must have been liberals.....

Anyway, so given that the GOP is a diverse party, it is impossible to come up with a "platform" that really means anything to define all Republicans. Look at the planks.... Abortion - We are across the spectrum on that. Gun Control/registration same thing. Even tax cuts have their detractors. If we were to attempt to actually define a specific set of platform "planks" that satisified everyone, there wouldn't be a platform. That's the reality of today and that's the problem I see with the Libertarian Party. They seem to be more interested in what position "A Libertarian" should take on an issue instead of what they truly believe is the best thing. So, Republicans need to define themselves, each individually I think and as long as the party seems to be going in that direction, they remain Republicans.

My definition of myself is what I call a "Reagan Republican" and it stems from the over-riding belief that defined the greatest President of the 20th Century - Ronald Reagan. It's really quite simple actually, it's a belief in America and in Americans. Americans are ordinary people who do extraordinary things, if they are allowed to be Americans. Leave them alone and let them do great things. It's not anarchy, Americans created a government and a system that has it's place, but it's as a servant of the people, not the other way around. I have found over the years that if I base my decisions on issues on that simple principle, I'm comfortable with whatever side I take.

For example. The Republicans support, according to the party platform, Smaller government and less regulation.

There's no question that the Republicans in congress have expanded government as well as Regulation (even outside of Homeland Security issues) in the last 2 years of Republican control in both houses of congress as well as the White House.

I agree that the GOP is a big tent. However, if the party has a platform then they should at least try to adhere to it on votes that specificality relate to the platform.

From what I have seen the only thing our congressman and senators on both sides vote consitantly for is ways to "pay off" people to gain those peoples support in their next re-election.

From 1993 on, I regularly told people they should write off the Democratic Party because that party had control of both houses of congress as well as the white house for 2 years and yet accomplished nothing that their party publicly supported in their platform or retoric.

Now it is 2004 and the GOP has done the same thing. How can we continue to support people in government who continue to ignore everything they claim to support and only seem to work on the deals the will get them re-elected.

Elections are complicated and require a lot of support, financial and otherwise. But if an elected official does nothing but what will help them get re-elected and seems to ignore the needs of the people as well the promises they have made and the platform they claim to support then why support them for re-election.

Re-election seems to be the only issue of import to people holding elected positions from both parties. Is it not time to consider sending a wake up call through the election process to remind these people that they work for us and that we hold them responsible?

I became a Republican back during the 1976 election. I honestly felt that Gerald Ford deserved a chance to see what he could do. And I respected the Republican party because they talked Nixon into resigning(some thing that didn't happen a few years back).

Years ago, I thought abortion was a good thing(to many unwanted children). But as I matured(sounds better than getting old)I realized that there are so very many people who want a child and can't have one. The trend today is to have an abortion or become a single mom(which when is extremely young isn't always the best choice)

As for gun control, I don't get excited about that either way.


At this point in time, I can't imagine leaving the Republican Party. Think the Dems would have done better in the election if they had gone John Edwards though.

Those are two separate questions. Whether you're welcomed or not, they're certainly not going to encourage you to go elsewhere. I think they'd prefer you stay there, quietly, in the corner with your mouth shut, but voting hand ready when they need it.

I too have issues with the party, and had written to both Senators (from Texas), with no reply. My main issue was with Social Security--any idiot can see the writing on the wall--at some point they're going to have to raise taxes to pay benefits. But this is tax money we're already spent. Anyone with even the slightest claim to fiscal conservatism can see that this is a huge issue that must be dealt with in the very short term....unless of course you've just decided that squandering our tax money--supposedly dedicated to to the trust fund for SS--and making it up later by raising taxes is the right thing to do. If so, I don't really see how I could vote for that person--and I said so in my letters. No response whatsoever. However, I don't see myself leaving the party any time soon--who would be the viable alternative. Politically, I am certainly more Libertarian than I am Republican, but I just don't see a viable alternative out there. If I did, I'd vote for him (yes, or her, too!).

Do you believe the Republican party is following the platform in practice when you consider recent issues that have been voted on in congress? Sometimes.

Do you believe that the Republican party welcome libertarians or would the party prefer we went elsewhere? Hobbs said it.

Is anyone else out there also considering leaving the GOP? If so, why and to where? Not me. The only alternative is the Democrats.

If even 5% of the GOP left for a third party and voted for that party rather then voted for Bush do you think that would cost him the election? Probably. Elections are close, these days. So I couldn't do it.

It isn't necessarily either/or. I've had no problems at all openly working with both the Republican and Libertarian parties, which I've been doing since 1972, the first year the LP was on the ballot and the first year I could vote.

On a larger scale than l'il ol' me, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has been doing it for years, ever since he ran for President on the LP ticket, even though he was serving as a GOP Congressman at the time. -- and he's still in Congress. He's not real popular with the leadership I'm sure, but that's not because he's an LP member, but because he votes according to libertarian principles, which gets in the way of the usual political deal making.

I'll admit to a fair bit of dissatisfaction with the direction of the Bush administration, mainly on spending, size of government, and civil liberties issues, but I still consider him preferable to Kerry. I'd rather vote LP, but if my state, Washington, looks to be in play as election day approaches, then I'll have to go with Bush. Can't let Kerry have my state if I can do anything about it. OTOH, if the polls are showing Bush with a decent shot at taking WA, that probably means he's won anyway.

I consider myself as a Republican (have never voted outside the party, for that matter), but I have clear libertarian leanings on some issues. My outlook has always been to work within the party, to seek to make it more of what I personally think is the best way for the country, than to look for a different pary. In particular, I am not in favor of the Libertarian Party, which goes much farther than what I would like along those lines. I have never had anyone try to make me feel "unwelcome" in the Republican party because of my "libertarian" leanings.

Yes, as of late, I have been very discontented with the neoconservatives in the GOP. I am actually considering voting for Michael Peroutka (www.peroutka2004.com) -- the Constitution Party candidate -- in November. Some may contend that it is a "wasted vote," but at this point in my life, I would rather put principle over politics.

Any opinions on this?

I am considering not voting for Bush for various reasons. As a moral conservative, yet an economic moderate I don't quite fit comfortably into the Republican party anyway. The current crop of Republicans seems more than willing to spend our taxes on wars and Iraqis, but are stingy with our own needy people. They are spending away our economic future in Iraq. I thought Reagan taught us you can't cut taxes and fund expensive government programs (defense).

In theory, I agree fully with the concept of "putting principle over politics". But I also know that politics has been described as "the art of doing what is possible." That is a rather poetic way of stating an inescapable fact of political life: The idealism that many of us hold to can never be applied fully in real life. Part of the reason is that that idealism is not the same for all of us. Thus, we must always choose between options that are not "good" and "bad" but "not really good" and "probably even less good."

In bald, pragmatic terms even though that is obviously not the intent, it seems to me that a vote for someone other than one of the major candidates is not so much a "wasted" vote as a choice to "let others make the choice for you". If there was a candidate who was closer to my own political preferences than one of the two major candidates, and who actually had a chance of winning, I would not hesitate one instant to vote for such a candidate. But since politics is "the art of doing what is possible" I always have to stay in the realm of what is possible. And since there are very few cases where I consider the Democratic candidate to be the better choice, I always end up voting Republican, even though I consider the Republicans the "not really good" option. But they are still preferable to the "probably even less good" option.

Just my opinion...

It is certainly true that there is a struggle between the libertarian wing of the Republican party and those Republicans who are more towards the center or even somewhat authoritarian in their ideology. In order to better understand the political differences I think we need to refer to the 2-axis political chart below:
IMAGE
Taken from http://www.politicalcompass.org/
IMAGE
It should be pointed out that libertarians don't necessarily have to be conservative and in fact many are quite liberal. For instance, the ACLU is a very libertarian organization but because there is a perception that a libertarian is a conservative many don't recognize this.

At present the main struggle within the party is between the large segment of Christian conservative Republicans which tend to be more authoritarian and the libertarian Republicans which can at times be almost anti-government. (Of course there is some crossover within these groups) Disagreements between these groups arise in many social issues; The FCC crack-down on media impropriety, Abortion rights, and Homosexual marriage to name a few. In each of these cases the more authoritarian Republicans support government regulation and the libertarians oppose it (unless moral conviction supercedes their desire to minimize government intrusion).

More to the point of your question, I think libertarians are welcome in the Republican party but I don't think they should dictate the direction of the party. As a Christian conservative, I recognize my priorities and expectations may differ or even conflict with libertarian republicans. Yet we find ourselves in a situation in which we need each other's vote in order to prevent the Democratic party, which often works against each of our goals, from winning elections.

Overlandsailor, I believe the best thing for you to do is to work within the party to garner support for your positions and to stick with the party even if you find yourself in the minority because in our current two-party system the alternative is much worse. In addition, by starting a new party that is conservative in nature, you will only fragment the Republican voting base and it would obviously take many decades for a new viable conservative party to surpass the republican party during which time the Democrats would likely enjoy a hegemony in government at all levels. This would be entirely self-defeating and I hope you agree. We should instead hope for the success of liberal third parties like the green party and as the left fragments and declines in strength it will be "safer" for the right to have a full-fledged debate.


I can't see myself ever leaving the GOP for a different party except in the unlikely event that a viable third party arose that more accurately represented my views and would siphon votes equally from both parties so as to avoid bolstering the Democratic party.

It's really all about priorities. My priority right now is to see the judiciary fixed and I appreciate President Bush's nominees. It is very likely that at least one, maybe two Supreme Court Justices will step down within the next few years. The man elected this November will likely choose who will fill that or those position(s), and thereby direct the course of the nation in many ways for the next decade or more. We cannot afford a liberal President to further pollute our judiciary at any level let alone at the highest.

I understand president Bush has upset libertarians by supporting higher government spending and continuing the assault weapons ban, etc. However, I must ask you if you really think a Democratic President would have made choices more in line with libertarian objectives? Face it, we have two choices. Pick your priorities and vote for the party that will help accomplish them.

Bush should move to the right fiscally and to the left socially, but maintain his core beliefs. Most Americans want balanced budgets, lean government and low tax rates. Bush has delivered a great tax cut echoing Kennedy and Reagan, but has not reduced the deficit, which will cause economic issues in his second term. What Bush should do is use the word conservative in terms of conservation and finally rid of America of its ludicrous dependence on foreign oil that the internationally-challenged Clinton-Gore administration worsened. He also should fight a more comprehensive war on terror domestically.

While I oppose gay marriage ( I support civil unions), Bush should ignore this and other social issues. Most Americans want the federal government to stay out of the morals business. Bush should liberalize government control on communications, instead focusing surveillance on terrorists.

I believe that the Republican Party has started being non responsive. I influence of
large contributors have outvoted Middle America. Corporations have outsourced Jobs
to China, India and received tax breaks for this. Corporations have cut Pensions to
retirees, healthcare and only meet mimimum requires. Employees have to pay for majority
of these costs. Large corporations have only given cost of living raise or no raises. Republicans
have become the tool of Large Corporations and not the family as overtime rules are
challenged and media consolidation continues. It is time for reform. I supported
George W. Bush the first time. However We can't afford for 4 more years.

"Vote your hopes, vote your dreams."--Ralph Nader during the 2000, presidential race.

Sailor, I'm glad you started this thread. It gives me the chance to explore some of the the things that have been eating many of the party faithful. I want to explain my comments within the context of the libertarian/conservative split and the coming election.

George W. Bush has by and large appealed to middle America with his faith, anounciations about having a small but active government and the staple of cutting taxes. Both libertarians and conservatives scoff at the notion that the government has gotten smaller and the administration's only excuse has been that outside national security, growth of government has been only 3%. This is hardly anything over which to applaud. But it isn't necesarily social policy which concerns me now and it seems quite trivial, given all we've been through in the past three years.

Some men are what the times require, is the old cliche. I could arguably make the same statement about the parties. Only when the two parties fail to address an issue do third parties become viable and this phenomenon is much more true at the local level. It is for this reason, voting for the "ideal candidate" in not necessarily making the best possible decision.

When I close that curtain in the ballot box, I go in knowing I'm not going to get everything I want. Believing this, my conscience is always clear about the GOP. I know in the end, they are the most realistic choice we have to win the war on terrorism, cuting taxes, and at the very least going to bat for cultural issues in what has been an onslaught over the normalization of gay marriage, partial birth abortion, school choice and stem cell research. For these reasons--despite my quips with excessive spending--I remain a staunch supporter of the president and of the party.

Above all however, I know the president is the clearest choice to perserve America as it now fights for its very existence. The only way the opposition can succeed is by aping his rhetoric. That said, there should be no further argument in my mind as to who's the viable choice in this election.

Well, Ive been debating this, just as a matter of principle.

First, I'm more on teh left as far as social and economic issues go.

Gay Marriage: Legalize it (Not what the GOP wants to hear)

Put more money into the inner cities, reorganize welfare, and (when I can figure out how to deal with teh consequences of a short term spike in drug use)...

begin regulating controled substances.

But... as far as foreign policy goes... Im right there with the GOP, lol....or at the very least, I'm pretty right-wing.

Defend (rationally) Israel's right to exist...

The Iraq war was the right thing to do....

Vigorously guard against terror (rationally)

Basicaly, speak softly, but carry a big fricken stick...

So does this make me a Conservative Libertarian or a Liberal Republican?

That being said, I wouldn't so much leave the party as I would cross lines this election because GWB is the main reprensentative of the party. And he's not helping boost the image. The admin is screwing up in certain places and some of the poilicies I don't agree with. I would of voted for Clark if he had gotten the nod, but I wouldn't leave the party. I like McCain a lot. There are very few people aside from him that could keep me there.