The Fork in the Road for Vermont
I had a wonderful discussion at the Goldwater reception with
Greg Parke about his campaign against Sanders in one of the most interesting states in the union: from where I sit Vermont appears, like Southern California, to be an area of libertarian principles that have become so watered-down as to turn the entire state a sort of pale blue hue.
And yet, Vermont has an extraordinary commitment to the Second Amendment, and awash in firearms, which can be carried by anyone. There are those, of course, who maintain that Vermont is adversely affected by people from the northeastern metropolises, who live there only part-time—but vote "full-time" in Vermont as well as their home states. This theory holds that the full-timers—"real Vermonters"—aren't big nanny staters. I'm not so sure, but I'd like some sort of national resolution on this issue, since plenty of New Yorkers declared openly in 2004 that they intended to vote in their home states and the state that contained their vacation properties. (After all, Florida was a big swing state, and the end justified the means.)
Whatever the situation, Vermonters need to consider whether they were well-served by Jim Jeffords, and want to repeat the "Democrat-in-independent clothing" mistake.
Parke is a personable man with a passion for this country that is underscored by his two decades in the USAF. He cares about the people of Vermont, and wants to educate New Englanders about the true consequences of statism. He and I and another charming Air Force man from a blue state (Massachusetts) talk about how insidious the liberal argument is, and how willing people seem to be to give up liberty for the illusion of safety. We've all had these arguments with our liberal friends, and all experienced that exquisitely frustrating "Ben Franklin" moment in which we declare they deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Do we mean it? Well, probably not. But the whole thing is an uphill battle.
If you're in New England, spread the word about Lt. Colonel Parke. If you're in Vermont, remember to vote, and consider helping out with the campaign.
Posted by: Attila at
01:01 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Let's just say it Liberalism = cowardice. You see it manifested in the liberal reaction to 9/11 and again in the reaction to the disaster in New Orleans.
While I hate to sterotype them I am going to. Liberals in general seem totally unwilling to take action to defend their country, their way of life or even help their fellow man.
It get tiresome hearing these armchair quarterbacks constantly criticizing men of action. Men of action by definition make mistakes.
Jim Jeffords is a perfect example of a liberal politician without any moral compass at all. A man totally unable to represent the very people that elected him due to his selfishness and lust of personal power. Not only that but he displayed a profound lack of judgement when he decided to become an "independent". His actions reduced the quality of the represention the people of Vermont have in the Senate from one of some influence to a nutured ineffectual presence in the Senate that is not respected by either party.
The people in Vermont deserve to be represented by a Senator that believes in SOMETHING!
Posted by: Doug at September 03, 2005 04:55 AM (6krEN)
2
He and I and another charming Air Force man from a blue state (Massachusetts) talk about how insidious the liberal argument is, and how willing people seem to be to give up liberty for the illusion of safety.
Right on! I mean, what are we to make of such left-wing liberal ideas as the War on Drugs, War on Pornography, and the PATRIOT Act?
Posted by: Christophe at September 03, 2005 03:17 PM (td8Qe)
3
Well, it all has to do with how you define words. The word "liberal," for example, has two meanings: 1) modern-day leftist, and 2) classical liberal.
I myself fit one of those definitions--but not the other.
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 03, 2005 05:07 PM (P2mGf)
4
The word "liberal," for example, has two meanings: 1) modern-day leftist, and 2) classical liberal.
Indeed so. Allow me to drop the snark tone for a moment to comment on the point without using either version of the l-wod, lest my point be confused.
The point of the excerpt that I originally quoted seemed to be saying that leftists are ready to trade off any kind of liberty in exchange for security. I have a hard time fitting that statement with even the rightist stereotype of a leftist, let alone the reality as I see it. I thought that leftists were touchy-feely "Oh, no, don't restrict any right whatsoever even if it gets us all killed!" types?
Most of the really bad-idea tradeoffs between liberty and security that I've seen post-9/11 have been signature causes of the right. It seems that the civil rights agenda on the right, at the moment, can be summarized as, "If you are a law-abiding citizen, you have nothing to fear from the government." If that isn't the most anti-libertarian idea imaginable, I do not know what is.
Posted by: Christophe at September 03, 2005 05:30 PM (td8Qe)
5
I thought that leftists were touchy-feely "Oh, no, don't restrict any right whatsoever even if it gets us all killed!" types?
Sure see "Amendment." As in, "Second."
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 03, 2005 06:05 PM (uPa3y)
6
Well, even I am not crazy enough to kick the Second Amendment tar baby. I will note, however, that the left has no monopoly on wanting to expand government power to give people a warm fuzzy idea that something is Being Done.
Posted by: Christophe at September 03, 2005 11:23 PM (td8Qe)
7
Fair enough. See "Homeland Security, Department of."
Or, you know--nearly any piece of domestic legislation with Richard Nixon's signature on it.
Posted by: Attila Girl at September 03, 2005 11:36 PM (uPa3y)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
29kb generated in CPU 0.0235, elapsed 0.2374 seconds.
209 queries taking 0.2269 seconds, 464 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
