Thursday, September 24, 2009


I have to admit, I haven't been too much into blogging lately. I don't like radicals from either party. I find the state of the republican party with the uber-crazy fiscal conservative quasi-libertarians hijacking it, to be so disappointing and depressing. I feel abandoned by the Glenn Beck fiscally crazy crowd. Sean Hannity is no longer a republican, he considers himself a fiscal conservative independent. Sarah Palin identifies with the libertarian party and many are listening to too much television and lusting after Sarah for their own freaking good. It is the equivalent to the take over of the democratic party by liberals. It's not that I think the government should spend like drunken house wives who self medicate, I just think some room to disagree with the fiscal crazies would be nice. Some acquiescence of so called "compassionate conservatives" who think some governmental intervention in society is at times necessary and tax revenue kicked back into the community, is not always a bad thing.
I do feel there is a radical right-wing take over coming to the republican party. Many are pitch forking the "change" of the party to further itself to the right and to mimic aspects of the libertarian party. This is not acceptable to me. I am far more committed to social and foreign policy conservatism than I am to crazy anarchist fiscal views. A consensus must be made by these libertarian hijackers that the ideological road of revamping the republican party is no better than the socialist views you bash consistently. By calling me names like RINO and heaven help me, liberal because I think differently on immigration issues makes you no better than dem's who call me racist for disagreeing with Obama. It's all the same. Forcing a party to adopt a much more stringent conservative ideology is dangerous and futile. Creating a strong and viable third party option by abandoning the republican party to stroke the freedom from government bandwagon loving libertarians, does no good for anyone but the democrats. I am strongly opposed to this strong embrace coming from conservatives of laissez-faire libertarianism. It is getting more and more radical in its ideology. I am strongly opposed to the rhetoric coming from so called conservative republican mouth pieces in the media. Not the rhetoric considering health care and rabid spending, but the sexy attitude given to the losertarian party who will make life more difficult for the republicans. Stop the nonsense. Conservatives are an absolute mess right now and it's because they have cuddled up with the radical fiscal philosophy of a worthless party. It's a sure loss in 2012. Keep your friends close and your their own party. Period. Yea I am a RINO. Screw you.


namaste said...

i hope you're wrong on this, nik. we don't have time for in-fighting with my way or the highway arguments. 2012 will be here in a blink and we'd better be ready.

love the rant of course!


El Cerdo Ignatius said...

Interesting points, Nikki. There are many conservatives (and even libertarians) who agree that government intervention is desirable by times. The point is that it has gotten entirely out of hand. The US government's total budget in FY 1989 was less than $1 trillion. In FY 2009 it is going to exceed $3.5 trillion. It is out of control and the country is going bankrupt. Even if there had been 5% increases in spending every year since 1989, which would have been plenty, plenty, the total budget spending today would be under $2.7 trillion.

So when libertarians rail on and on about the government, I understand completely where they're coming from. Conservatives get into power and they generally operate from the same playbook as liberals. Nothing changes, the debt piles up, the inconvenient parts of the Constitution are ignored, and the march toward statism continues. By times it stops (Ford, Reagan), by times it slows (Bush I, Clinton post-94, Bush II), by times it races (LBJ, Nixon, Clinton pre-94, Obama). But it never backtracks. The last president under whose administration the US national debt actually shrank was Harry Truman.

And the attraction of libertarianism has a whole lot less to do with taxation than it does with regulation and red tape. Despite the reams and volumes of government regulation of the banking and securities sector, it still went to hell in 2008 and took most of the economy with it. Half the amount of regulation, but more strictly defined and enforced, along with sensible monetary policy (see yesterday's comment re: Ron Paul v. Ben Bernanke) would have prevented or mitigated the disaster and avoided the debatable necessity of the bailouts. And take a look at state and local governments if you really want to see the target of the ire of most libertarians. Many, many municipalities go overboard with their requirements for permits, fees, meddling bureaucrats, red tape, financial mismanagement, inconsistent application of regulations, rules that make no sense, and so on - when a libertarian complains that he has had his rights to enjoy his property infringed upon by some know-nothing busy-body from City Hall, I feel nothing but sympathy. This is not the way the country - any western country - ought to be run.

I get your umbrage with Glen Beck, who makes good points from time to time but mostly drags the conservative cause downward. Liberals are going to do everything they can to tie conservatives to the loudmouths with the least credibility. It's ugly politics, but Republicans are going to have to get used to it.

I understand your argument, but I disagree that conservatives are in a mess because they're embracing a radical fiscal philosophy. Call it radical, but for most of the country's history it passed for sensible. You want interventionist government? Leave that up to your state, not the feds. The feds are bankrupt, and no one wants to do anything about it. Maybe radical fiscal philosophy is the only way out of the mess.

Nikki said...

El C, I don't think you and I are in total disagreement. I agree that spending needs to be reeled in and that regulations did nothing for the banking crisis. My point is not one of passive spending vs. radical, but the tone of many who are embracing this philosophy at the expense of the party. Advocating a radical change to the party will in my mind damage it severely. If these new found lovers of fiscal conservatives can live with the rest of us, then they can have a voice. They don't seem to be able to. I don't think there is an American who isn't worried about the deficit and yet you have the left who wants a massive health care system, and the right who wants to do away with many governmental programs, neither of which would fare well for the economy right now. I think you are the voice of reason, and we need to gradually go back to responsible fiscal policy. Great comment as usual! :)N

Nikki said...

Maria, no time for in-fighting is absolutely right. I can't say it enough. This country is in trouble if the party goes this direction! To me it is time to unite...:)N

Sue said...

well said. If liberals are tying conservatives to the loud mouths like Beck, well then do something about it. I never hear true republicans denounce people like Beck. This post by you Nikki is the first sensible start to opening up and talking truth I have read! Don't you dare yell at me either, and pick apart what I said here, I am complimenting you!

El Cerdo Ignatius said...

Sue:: Don't you dare yell at me either, and pick apart what I said here, I am complimenting you!

Defensive, much? Although given your, uh, special relationship with our hostess, I can understand why you might be.

[Heavy objects again start raining down on Ignatius, who wisely takes cover.]

Sue said...

well El, she does yell at me alot, sorta like my mommy...

ok wait a minute El, are you trying to get me to say something stupid so I CAN get yelled at!? :-)))

El Cerdo Ignatius said...

Qui? Moi? Would I do such a thing?


t.durham said...

No Nikki, you are a patriot. We love ya!

Nikki said...

Sue, I never yell at you...I only set you straight in a very direct way. Besides, I am all about the slap and tickle. AND just so you know I still think dems and Obama are retards...HA! :)N

Nikki said...

t., Thanks!! We may not always see eye to eye, but I always know we are both up for a good donkey bash! :)N

susana said...

anyone been following the G20 anarchy? Libertarian terrorists! or

susana said...

another place for unconventional news coverage... its a little more mainstream than the other two. But still above the cut.

Nikki said...

susana, pretty liberal links...but I guess it's the thought that counts right?? :)N

Kn@ppster said...

Palin ran for mayor of Wasilla as, and governed Alaska as, a big-government "progressive." Her big projects as mayor wer:

a) Running the town into millions of dollars in long-term debt by building a sports center that ended up mired in an eminent domain battle; and

b) Hiring a lobbyist to seek and get $4,000 per citizen per year in federal pork

As governor, she:

- Advocated giving each citizen a "debit card" to buy gas with, funded by oil taxes; and

- Rammed through half a billion dollars in corporate welfare for a pipeline company.

Calling her a "conservative" is a stretch -- calling her a "libertarian" is a friggin' joke.

Nikki said...

kn@ppster, I didn't call her one, she called herself one last week. Read the post carefully, she may have governed that way, but last week she said HERSELF she was "closer to libertarian" views. Read my fine print.

Kn@ppster said...


If Palin calls herself an African-American lesbian, are you going to take that at face value, too? She may have made the claim, but you're the one who took it seriously and riffed on it.

There are only three reasonable explanations for taking seriously the claim that Palin is a libertarian:

- You don't know much about Palin; or

- You don't know much about libertarianism; or

- You're batshit insane.

I was sent over here by one of the batshit insane guys, who's citing you as "proof" of the claim.

Nikki said...

Kn@ppster, you are also proof of all my psycho libertsrian claims. If what I say isn't true about Libertarians, why so angry? Sarah didn't say she was a LIBERTARIAN she said she identifies with many of the ideologies. And yes I am batshit insane.

Kn@ppster said...


Angry? I'm not angry. Matter of fact, I'm happy to have been pointed at your blog, and will shortly add it to my own blogroll.

Why would you think that disputing your contentions automatically translates to anger?

Tom Knapp ("KN@PPSTER")

Nikki said...

Kn@ppster, blogroll away and when you do, let me know and I will gladly link you to mine as well. I only think someone is angry when they call me batshit insane, call me crazy. HA! Also, I understand that I was less than complimentary to Libertarians and probably deserved the insane comment. This blog is not for the faint of heart. You seem to be thick might be a long and glorious relationship. :)N

Kn@ppster said...


Ah, I see. I didn't intend to call YOU batshit insane. That's just one of the alternatives!


Eric Dondero said...


Nikki, please, I beg of you, stop spending your time responding to Knappster. He is one of those truly "batshit" insane folks on the far fringes of our libertarian movement. In fact, he hardly calls himself a libertarian any more. He's a self-described Anarchist, very close to those crazy-ass protesters at the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh.


I say this as someone who has three times as much background in the deep trenches of the libertarian movement, than non-libertarian (turned Anarchist) Tom "Knappster" Knapp.

I'm a 25-year Libertarian Party member, also served on the Libertarian National Committee and as a Personal Aide to two former Libertarian Party Presidential candidates, including Ron Paul in 1988.

Sarah Palin has a long history within our libertarian movement going back to the 1980s when she first ran for Governor.

Knappster points out a couple controversial issues, where he comes up with some BS of Palin doing some non-libertarian things.

He conveniently misses the Boston Herald 3 page spread on "Sarah Palin the libertarian," back in 2008 which pointed out how her top two Lts. in her Mayoral races were Libertarians, and talked of her attempts as Mayor to fight back an effort by the Religious Right to run the bars and taverns out of town.

Ironically, Palin was slammed in 2005/06 by her fellow Republicans in the primary for "not being a real Republican, but rather a Libertarian," for having once advocted legalization of marijuana. (I was there in Alaska at the time.)

Finally, of note, she received the endorsement of the leaders of the Libertarian Party of Alaska for her election as Governor in 2006.

Funny how Knappster, self-proclaimed Anarchist who may not even be a member of the Libertarian Party any more, is pretending to know more about Palin than the good Libertarian Party members of her home state.

Eric Dondero said...

Nikki, what you and your readers don't seem to get is that there's a solid straing of our movement called MAINSTREAM LIBERTARIANISM!!

Not ever Libertarian is an extremist.

Yes we claim Glenn Beck. But you know what? We also claim "moderate libertarian" Mark Foley.

And just the other day I defended Olympia Snowe on our Libertarian Republican blog in a full-blown article, from Conservative attacks on her wanting to run her out of the Party.

In the 1990s, one of the main speakers at the Republican Liberty Caucus National Convention was Ann Stone of Pro-Choice Republicans.

I'm a fan of Meghan McCain, and have sided with her on many issues.

If moderate-conservative Rob Simmonds wins the CT GOP nomination for Senate, I will be one of his staunchest supporters.

And Lindsay Graham of South Carolina? We've defended him at Libertarian Republican, and even blasted his critics for not recognizing his brave service to our country as an active duty Military member who has gone to Iraq.

What you should be attacking is EXTREMIST LIBERTARIANS like Knapp and his co-horts.

You also need to learn more about the Mainstream wing of the Libertarian movement.

No offense Nikki, but you seem completely clueless as to who we are.

Nikki said...

Eric, please do not defend Mark Foley. He is a pervert. I am ripping on extremists, I think I make that pretty stinking clear. Remember the line about radicals?...I think the 2 words are the same don't you?

El Cerdo Ignatius said...

Eric Dondero: Sarah Palin has a long history within our libertarian movement going back to the 1980s when she first ran for Governor.

Sarah Palin first ran for Governor in the 1980s? When she was in her 20s? Hey, maybe that's true and I just missed it. I miss all kinds of stuff. Could you cite a source?

Incognito said...

I find myself wincing, as well, when i hear certain mouthpieces for the republican party denigrate those who do not fall in line with their agenda. I have always considered myself a moderate Republican, a fiscal (though I agree there are times when we do need government help)and foreign policy conservative. People like Rush seem to believe that the moderates and independents voted for Obama, and perhaps some did, but not this one, nor any of my other moderate friends and i resent his assertions.

The far right republicans are becoming as ex-clusive as the far left, and that's not a good thing.

Kn@ppster said...

Ah -- I see that Eric "Batshit Insane" Dondero's been around to poop in the punchbowl.

Correction: Dondero says that I "may not even be a Libertarian Party member." I am a national Libertarian Party member, chair of my county's Libertarian Party affiliate, and executive committee member of my state's Libertarian Party affiliate, and 2008 candidate of the Libertarian Party for Congress in Missouri's 2nd US House District.

So far as I know, Mr. Dondero's sole real connection with the LP for the last 5-10 years is that he occasionally makes money by collecting ballot access signatures for LP candidates. When he's not collecting ballot access signatures for Joe Lieberman, or collecting referendum signatures to restore marriage apartheid in Maine, that is.