<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Modern Republican Party is a Special Kind of Suck (Part 2 of 3)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2012/11/13/the-modern-republican-party-is-a-special-kind-of-suck-part-2-of/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2012/11/13/the-modern-republican-party-is-a-special-kind-of-suck-part-2-of/</link>
	<description>Life. Liberty. Property. Defending individual freedom and liberty, one post at a time.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 03:02:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Liberty Papers &#187;Blog Archive &#187; The Modern Republican Party is a Special Kind of Suck (Part 1 of 3)</title>
		<link>http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2012/11/13/the-modern-republican-party-is-a-special-kind-of-suck-part-2-of/#comment-89436</link>
		<dc:creator>The Liberty Papers &#187;Blog Archive &#187; The Modern Republican Party is a Special Kind of Suck (Part 1 of 3)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 05:04:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelibertypapers.org/?p=11118#comment-89436</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Part 2   Permalink &#124;&#124; Comments (1) &#124;&#124; Categories: Corruption,Culture,Democracy,Democrats,Dumbasses and Authoritarians,Economics,Election &#039;12,Fiscal Policy,Foreign Affairs,Free Trade,Government Ethics,Government Incompetence,Government Regulation,Government Transparency,Healthcare,History,Hope n&#039; Change,Human Rights,Legal,Media,Military,Politics,Republicans,Security,Taxation,Tea Party,War on Terror   TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2012/11/10/the-modern-republican-party-is-a-special-kind-of-suck-part-1-of/trackback/ Read more posts from Stephen Littau    &#8226; &#8226; &#8226; [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Part 2   Permalink || Comments (1) || Categories: Corruption,Culture,Democracy,Democrats,Dumbasses and Authoritarians,Economics,Election &#039;12,Fiscal Policy,Foreign Affairs,Free Trade,Government Ethics,Government Incompetence,Government Regulation,Government Transparency,Healthcare,History,Hope n&#039; Change,Human Rights,Legal,Media,Military,Politics,Republicans,Security,Taxation,Tea Party,War on Terror   TrackBack URI: <a href="http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2012/11/10/the-modern-republican-party-is-a-special-kind-of-suck-part-1-of/trackback/" rel="nofollow">http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2012/11/10/the-modern-republican-party-is-a-special-kind-of-suck-part-1-of/trackback/</a> Read more posts from Stephen Littau    &#8226; &#8226; &#8226; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Liberty Papers &#187;Blog Archive &#187; The Modern Republican Party is a Special Kind of Suck (Part 3 of 3)</title>
		<link>http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2012/11/13/the-modern-republican-party-is-a-special-kind-of-suck-part-2-of/#comment-89433</link>
		<dc:creator>The Liberty Papers &#187;Blog Archive &#187; The Modern Republican Party is a Special Kind of Suck (Part 3 of 3)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 04:57:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelibertypapers.org/?p=11118#comment-89433</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Part 2 [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Part 2 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TerryP</title>
		<link>http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2012/11/13/the-modern-republican-party-is-a-special-kind-of-suck-part-2-of/#comment-89391</link>
		<dc:creator>TerryP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2012 20:27:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelibertypapers.org/?p=11118#comment-89391</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Stephen, my problem is that he changed the law by executive order.  If he can do it with this law why not with any other law on the books.  Using your example, why would the President even have to ask Congress to repeal the entire Federal Crminal code, when he could just issue an executive order doing so.  By allowing a President to make changes to laws or making new laws by Executive order we are setting ourselves up for a dictatorship.  You may have agreed with this one, but what recourse will you have when you don&#039;t agree with the next time it is done.  Laws and changes to them are to be made in the Legislative branch of government.  The Executive branch is supposed to execute those laws.  I agree that there are way to many laws and we should eliminate the majority of them, but using Executive orders is not the way to do it.

As far as the rest goes I think Romney lost mainly due to the fact that he let Obama, the media, and in some cases even other republicans define him and because he didn&#039;t make a case that Obama has shown very little leadership, while he would.  He needed to specifically call Obama out on his lack of leadership and then follow up on how he would lead.  He should have differentiated himself by saying that he would take responsibility for his time in office good or bad and not blame others for the things that don&#039;t go well and take credit for things that he had nothing to do with.  In otherwords, Lead.

While I believe that Gary Johnson was by far the best candidate, this election should have been a slam dunk for just about any republican candidate.  The republican party needs to find itself in smaller government and individual liberty.  Right now it is just Democrat-lite on economic issues and increasingly out of touch on foreign policy and social issues.  They need some true leaders to step up that can communicate well on the issues of smaller government and individual liberty.  Gary Johnson is one of those, but the big government republicans that control the party just are unwilling to embrace them, to the possible demise of the party.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stephen, my problem is that he changed the law by executive order.  If he can do it with this law why not with any other law on the books.  Using your example, why would the President even have to ask Congress to repeal the entire Federal Crminal code, when he could just issue an executive order doing so.  By allowing a President to make changes to laws or making new laws by Executive order we are setting ourselves up for a dictatorship.  You may have agreed with this one, but what recourse will you have when you don&#8217;t agree with the next time it is done.  Laws and changes to them are to be made in the Legislative branch of government.  The Executive branch is supposed to execute those laws.  I agree that there are way to many laws and we should eliminate the majority of them, but using Executive orders is not the way to do it.</p>
<p>As far as the rest goes I think Romney lost mainly due to the fact that he let Obama, the media, and in some cases even other republicans define him and because he didn&#8217;t make a case that Obama has shown very little leadership, while he would.  He needed to specifically call Obama out on his lack of leadership and then follow up on how he would lead.  He should have differentiated himself by saying that he would take responsibility for his time in office good or bad and not blame others for the things that don&#8217;t go well and take credit for things that he had nothing to do with.  In otherwords, Lead.</p>
<p>While I believe that Gary Johnson was by far the best candidate, this election should have been a slam dunk for just about any republican candidate.  The republican party needs to find itself in smaller government and individual liberty.  Right now it is just Democrat-lite on economic issues and increasingly out of touch on foreign policy and social issues.  They need some true leaders to step up that can communicate well on the issues of smaller government and individual liberty.  Gary Johnson is one of those, but the big government republicans that control the party just are unwilling to embrace them, to the possible demise of the party.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen Littau</title>
		<link>http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2012/11/13/the-modern-republican-party-is-a-special-kind-of-suck-part-2-of/#comment-89389</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Littau</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:52:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelibertypapers.org/?p=11118#comment-89389</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[TerryP, you made some excellent points here. I touched on Romney’s failure to go after Obama in Part 1 concerning Benghazi but I didn’t get into as much detail as you did here, specifically concerning the president’s failure to lead or take any responsibility on the issues you mentioned (and I’m sure this is an abbreviated list as well). I think Romney handled Obama with kid gloves and didn’t explain his own policies very well. I felt like Obama won the foreign policy debate at least to those who isn’t very informed of the Obama foreign policy. How many times did Romney accuse Obama of being “weak” only to agree with Obama’s policy when it got down to some of the details? His performance was pathetic.  

As far as the executive order issue on illegal immigration goes, I agree with you in principle but as a practical matter, I don’t think it’s possible to enforce every federal law on the books. If we really want to end this phenomenon of the president choosing which laws to enforce and which he is not I think the solution is theoretically quite simple: repeal the federal criminal code and start over. We only need a handful of federal criminal laws (immigration policy being one of them), the states can do the rest. I would love to see a presidential candidate run on this and say something like: “If I am elected, I will ask congress to repeal the entire federal criminal code and restore only the criminal laws the states do not have the ability nor authority to enforce and I will happily sign that bill.” That would (theoretically at least) tie the hands of the president and he would have no choice but to enforce any federal criminal law (unless the president legitimately felt that enforcing the law violated the constitution).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TerryP, you made some excellent points here. I touched on Romney’s failure to go after Obama in Part 1 concerning Benghazi but I didn’t get into as much detail as you did here, specifically concerning the president’s failure to lead or take any responsibility on the issues you mentioned (and I’m sure this is an abbreviated list as well). I think Romney handled Obama with kid gloves and didn’t explain his own policies very well. I felt like Obama won the foreign policy debate at least to those who isn’t very informed of the Obama foreign policy. How many times did Romney accuse Obama of being “weak” only to agree with Obama’s policy when it got down to some of the details? His performance was pathetic.  </p>
<p>As far as the executive order issue on illegal immigration goes, I agree with you in principle but as a practical matter, I don’t think it’s possible to enforce every federal law on the books. If we really want to end this phenomenon of the president choosing which laws to enforce and which he is not I think the solution is theoretically quite simple: repeal the federal criminal code and start over. We only need a handful of federal criminal laws (immigration policy being one of them), the states can do the rest. I would love to see a presidential candidate run on this and say something like: “If I am elected, I will ask congress to repeal the entire federal criminal code and restore only the criminal laws the states do not have the ability nor authority to enforce and I will happily sign that bill.” That would (theoretically at least) tie the hands of the president and he would have no choice but to enforce any federal criminal law (unless the president legitimately felt that enforcing the law violated the constitution).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TerryP</title>
		<link>http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2012/11/13/the-modern-republican-party-is-a-special-kind-of-suck-part-2-of/#comment-89384</link>
		<dc:creator>TerryP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:01:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelibertypapers.org/?p=11118#comment-89384</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I agree with you on most of your points.  The republicans, media, and Obama defined Romney in regards to Bain Capital, the 47% comment, and the auto bailout.  These should have been slam dunk issues where he could have described how the free market works better then gov&#039;t control.  He could have used them as a way to differentiate himself in a positive way.  Instead he said nothing or apologized and let these issues become a negative for him and other republicans.

I agree about immigration but I don&#039;t agree that Obama was right in signing an executive order.  His ruling took it further then just saying we will not be going after you, but instead said you will now be legal.  This is a change in law that needs to be made at the legislative level.  This sets a bad precedent where if a President doesn&#039;t get a law passed he just signs an executive order to do the same thing.  This sounds like a dictatorship to me.

One thing that I thought you missed is that he rarely took Obama on over leadership, or lack thereof. Obama did not lead at all on most every issue.  Tax reform, no leadership. Social Security reform, no leadership. Medicare reform, no leadership. Benghazi, no leadership.  Spending cuts, no leadership.  Romney could have led on all these issues and called out Obama for his lack of leadership.  Instead Romney failed to lead on them as well.  For example, in regards to Benghazi he could have focused on Obamas complete lack of leadership and competence and rather focused in on if he used the word &quot;terrorism&quot;.  What a joke.  Whenever Romney had a chance to show leadership he failed, which is sad because I believe that may have been the biggest issue that Obama could have been beaten on.  Voters want a leader, but neither Romney or Obama showed it, so voters decided to stay with the person they know more and away from the one that was defined as a rich, out of touch republican who is going to get rid of all the goodies so the rich can get richer at the expense of the middle class.  

Where was Romney in telling the people that the middle classes median income has gone down every year since Obama has been President.  This should have been front and center in his reaching out to the middle class.  Instead you never heard about it.  Obama has done nothing for the middle class, yet Romney allowed Obama to look like he really cared about them and Romney only cared about the rich.

Romney failed to lead and lost.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with you on most of your points.  The republicans, media, and Obama defined Romney in regards to Bain Capital, the 47% comment, and the auto bailout.  These should have been slam dunk issues where he could have described how the free market works better then gov&#8217;t control.  He could have used them as a way to differentiate himself in a positive way.  Instead he said nothing or apologized and let these issues become a negative for him and other republicans.</p>
<p>I agree about immigration but I don&#8217;t agree that Obama was right in signing an executive order.  His ruling took it further then just saying we will not be going after you, but instead said you will now be legal.  This is a change in law that needs to be made at the legislative level.  This sets a bad precedent where if a President doesn&#8217;t get a law passed he just signs an executive order to do the same thing.  This sounds like a dictatorship to me.</p>
<p>One thing that I thought you missed is that he rarely took Obama on over leadership, or lack thereof. Obama did not lead at all on most every issue.  Tax reform, no leadership. Social Security reform, no leadership. Medicare reform, no leadership. Benghazi, no leadership.  Spending cuts, no leadership.  Romney could have led on all these issues and called out Obama for his lack of leadership.  Instead Romney failed to lead on them as well.  For example, in regards to Benghazi he could have focused on Obamas complete lack of leadership and competence and rather focused in on if he used the word &#8220;terrorism&#8221;.  What a joke.  Whenever Romney had a chance to show leadership he failed, which is sad because I believe that may have been the biggest issue that Obama could have been beaten on.  Voters want a leader, but neither Romney or Obama showed it, so voters decided to stay with the person they know more and away from the one that was defined as a rich, out of touch republican who is going to get rid of all the goodies so the rich can get richer at the expense of the middle class.  </p>
<p>Where was Romney in telling the people that the middle classes median income has gone down every year since Obama has been President.  This should have been front and center in his reaching out to the middle class.  Instead you never heard about it.  Obama has done nothing for the middle class, yet Romney allowed Obama to look like he really cared about them and Romney only cared about the rich.</p>
<p>Romney failed to lead and lost.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
