They came in under the Tea Party banner, many disgruntled Republicans and others just fed up with government spending and out of control debt.
Riding the wave of Libertarian-leaning Conservatives, Ted Cruz, from the Tea Party movement, effectively positioned himself for a US Senate run and won with Republican voter support. Back then, we had "Unity Rallies," where the Tea Party worked for Republicans to Unite behind their candidate. And like good Republicans, we did. In the end, Ted Cruz was the Republican Nominee, and most Republicans cast their vote for him.
Speaking for myself, I felt, since we voted for their guy (Libertarian choice Ted Cruz) they would vote for our Republican Candidates when the time came, like for Obama's 2nd Term election.
I remember the Libertarians found it more important to "stick with their values" rather than vote for Romney. They were OK with us Unifying around their candidate, but they wouldn't unify around our candidate, and ultimately allowed for the second term of Barak Obama.
They preferred to have Obama than to possibly allow Romney to win. Why? Because they knew all along, Ted Cruz wanted the White House, and with Romney in office, it would have prevented the Cruz run in 2016. But in 2016, Donald Trump won the Republican nomination, beating Ted Cruz and his Tea Party / Libertarian supporters, causing them to resist and make attempts to derail Trump's campaign.
Now, after several years of infiltration, these same Libertarian minded activists have done what they intended. They have become Executive Committee members of the Texas GOP and have effectively organized under the guise of being Republicans. They have placed their candidate in the Chairman's seat, and have been controlling the Party. In order to keep their plans alive, they must keep their Chairman alive. James Dickey, who fought against our own Republican nominee, President Trump till the very end, is facing a Republican challenger at the upcoming State Convention.
Cindy Asche, who brings business/management experience from the real world, along with common sense, and a long record of Republican activism, is seeking to restore the honor and integrity of the State Party. With Fundraising a priority, Asche has made comments concerning the crisis the Party faces and the need to develop the Party with paid outreach staff. She states that the Party can't be effective if it can't afford to hire field staff to compete with the efforts of National Democrat operatives in Texas.
There is a battle taking place within the Texas Republican Party, and the fight is for the soul of the Party. Are we the Libertarian Party, or are we the Compassionate Conservatives Ronald Reagan spoke of? Are we the hardliners who want mass deportation? Or are we able to develop real solutions for our country's problems?
A person working with the Texas GOP asked me if I would support James Dickey for Chairman. I told them I would not. In my mind, voting for him would be like voting for the same people who work against me. It makes no sense.
Hispanic voters are becoming more crucial than ever, and it has always been my opinion our Republican Party can lead on tough issues and earn the respect of the Hispanic community. What our State Party is doing now is not working and the message we're sending is what again? Something must change, and that something is the leadership at the top.
Duke, this is crazy talk.
ReplyDeleteI joined the GOP just before the Christian Right really took over the GOP in the early 1980s. I was dismayed to watch the Old Guard attempt to keep the new voters from actually taking charge, and participating in 10-hour senate convention fights.
Eventually, the Old Guard made an easy peace with the Christian Right...just in time to try to crush the New Liberty people who came in a few cycles ago. This was really horrible, as the Christian Right often forgot why they are named "Christian" and said really stupid things, like Ron Paul was not really pro-life because he rejected federal law-making for abortion and said it was a state issue. But FYI, Ron Paul earned honest money as a obstetrician-gynecologist and has delivered more than 4000 babies, has never performed an abortion, and been married for 60 years...not many pro-lifers can come close to his record, but an actual adherence to the Constitution is not what many people in the GOP really want, so we get this kind of tripe trotted out: "Oh no, it's millions of new voters invading my party and threatening to make it useful and try to reduce the size of government!"
The Republican Party will not be successful without the libertarian wing of the party, which is 100% of its Old Guard successful people, including Reagan, Gingrich, and Kemp, and nearly all of its growth today. Second, you appear to be unable to distinguish between anarchists and states'-rights libertarian types like most of our newer representatives, who are no more libertarian than Thomas Jefferson or any of the Founding Fathers, none of whom said, "Hey, let's support nationalization of kindergarten funding, or reasonably intrusive surveillance over all our citizens, and who started a war over a stamp tax (compared to the horrible GOPers who have nothing but glee for huge taxpayer-funded stadiums).
Spare me.
I appreciate your comment Warren. Do you remember the drastic change in delegates at the 2012 and 2014 Conventions? I remember walking around and these Tea Party / Libertarian infiltrators would literally snarl at me. I guess they assumed I was in favor of Amnesty. These same people loved Ted Cruz and everything he stands for. I have been told by these folks that the Republican Party doesn't need Hispanic outreach. All it needs is to get the Conservatives to vote. It's ironic that they want to be accepted in the Party, yet don't feel the need to reach out to conservative Hispanics, Blacks, Asians,etc. The problem with throwing in Reagan, Gingrich and Kemp, is they were respectful. Unfortunately, many of these new folks you mention are angry, bitter, mean, vengeful and vulgar. They start out name calling. They use Saul Alinsky tactics on our fellow Republicans who oppose them or their candidates. So, I lump them all in the same boat...Tea Party, Libertarian, Infiltrators. (Infiltrator is a term they've used to describe what they want to do in our Party.)
DeleteIt seems like the GOP is scared. Bahahahahahahahahahahahaha
DeleteI think that lumping all of every new wave into one group is a bad idea. The new people never trust the old people, and vice versa. I was never accepted into the Christian Right because I joined the party a year or two before they did. And I wasn't accepted as a New Liberty guy because I was considered Old Guard/Christian Right - I had to point out that I collected signatures for Ron Paul before many of them were born!
DeleteSome libertarians are anarchists. Some libertarians are states' rights guys. Some new people take time to learn how to play in the sandbox with others. Some people never learn. Give 'em time.
DeleteWarren is correct. We saw the Christian Right battle establishment types in the 1990s, and then in 2008 through 2012, we saw the Ron Paul and Tea Party newcomers wrestle with the old guard, some of whom were the Christian Right.
This is not new. The Republican Party has always had a 'business wing' and a 'true believer' wing since it was born in 1854, putting pro-business Whigs and Abolitionists together. Political coalitions are like that and are necessary in a large Republic.
Aside from being wrong in mis-labeling people and events, the original article has a core assumption that an 'invasion' of a group of people into the party is a bad thing, which is wrong. As our political coalitions shift and attitudes of voter change, we need to adapt and move forward. We need younger voters and we need to grow the party.
When Democrats went progressive 100 years ago, the GOP became the more conservative party, but has also had progressives - from TR to McCain - in its ranks. And conservatives have fought moderates for leadership of the party for as long. The establishment punked conservatives in the conventions of 1948 and 1952, picking Dewey (who lost) and Ike (who won) instead of conservative Taft. that's how long this has been going on.
The rise of Reagan was special because it marked the ascent of conservatism in the leadership of the Republican party. Ted Cruz, like many of us, is a Reagan Republican, and he won the Republican primary in 2012, won the Texas Presidential primary and won 85% of the primary this March. Why would you cast out of the party the guy who won 85% of the Republican primary vote statewide?!? Abbott and Dan Patrick also won their primaries with broad majorities.
The GOP has always also stood for individual rights and limited Government, that's a part of our core values. So it's not surprising that people who believe those things would to use the GOP as a vehicle for their politics. No, we are not for big-L Libertarians, but small-government libertarian-leaning folks who care about individual rights and the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th amendments in our bill of rights are a big part of the grassroots coalition.
We've been told for decades that social issues were the wrong things to bring up. They were 'divisive', so the pro-life folks were given lip-service but GOP Senators would vote for judicial liberals. During the last few decades, when the Bush wing GOP added taxes under Bush41 and spending under Bush43, we've seen the establishment wing fight conservatives on issues of spending and immigration and other hot-button issues. We saw the pro-amnesty side push the "Texas solution" in prior conventions. Both sides play the game of wrestling to win influence and push the party to go 'their way'. No side is unique. But it's unique of some in establishment to want to silence grassroots activism, and to consider it a 'problem' rather than a sign of energy.
But I'm in the camp that says that if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. I'm in the camp that want's a 'big tent' party that is held up by the tent-poles of principles and policies. The good news is the RPT and our leaders DO stand for something. Cruz, Abbott and Dan Patrick represent the Republican Party of Texas and its conservative core. So does the platform.
The attacks on a wing of the party for being politically active make no sense, because expressions that seek a party that is less representative of the grassroots, and less willing to stand on some principles ends up making the party weaker, smaller and less impactful.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou obviously don't know what you are talking about. This was the icing on the rubbish:
ReplyDelete[Are we the hardliners who want mass deportation? Or are we able to develop real solutions for our country's problems?]
Most Libertarians are open borders and the official LP is open borders.
The rest of your article is of the same caliber.
Thank you! As a Libertarian, this was the most horrifying if his outlandish claims.
DeleteAaron, thanks for your comment. The fact that most Libertarians want open borders does not work in your favor in the Republican Party. But I'm not talking about our borders. What is your position on dealing with the Illegal Immigrants living among us now?
DeleteLike all other peaceful individuals, leave them the hell alone. Come alongside Libertarians who want to do away with the welfare state entirely and believe in voluntarism to provide for the needy in society; but don't vilify non-violent, non-aggressive individuals who just want to live and work and provide a future for their families just like you and me.
DeleteDuke I think you're correct. Today's "Republicans" sound like the Democrats during Clinton and not at all like Republicans like Reagan or even GHW Bush. The GOP's just a bunch of statists anymore. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsmgPp_nlok&t=25s
DeleteDuke, Libertarians don't want to export immigrants, illegal or otherwise, from the United States. I think you are confusing the Tea Party with Libertarians. They may have some crossover but they aren't the same thing. I think people here are taking issue with your incorrect use of the term libertarian. I'd recommend if you want to have a policy discussion on your post then have it but when you start throwing around identifying terms then make sure you are using them properly. If you issue is with the Tea Party Republicans then use the term "Tea Party Republicans" in your post, but make sure you do your research and understand their position on issues.
DeleteHere is everything I need to know about this article and it's author...
ReplyDelete"Speaking for myself, I felt, since we voted for their guy (Libertarian choice Ted Cruz) they would vote for our Republican Candidates when the time came, like for Obama's 2nd Term election."
Libertarian choice Ted Cruz?? Go to any local, state or national Libertarian page and see what they think of Ted Cruz and his Conservative values. Also... Libertarians are for completely open borders so I don't know where he came up with that nonsense.
But I do believe the author is correct on one thing... there is a battle going on for the soul of the Republican Party. Not only in Texas, but around the country. I get a chuckle every time moderate Republicans claim to carry the banner of Reagan Conservatism. Moderates despised Reagan. The banner of the moderate wing of the GOP was then, and is still today that of Bush Pragmatism.
I am constantly called a "Libertarian" by those in the GOP who despise liberty leaning/TEA Party Republicans who advocate for Republican values and who want to hold republican office holders accountable to them. You can ask any of my open border, pro-choice, anti-road, anti-military Libertarian friends.... I sir, am no Libertarian.
The truth is that what you really despise about TEA Party conservatives is there love of and their desire to grow liberty.
Now, more than ever, I know I am associated proudly with the right faction of the Republican Party. It is very easy to sum this whole thing up... Moderates run as TP Conservatives to get elected. They talk about defunding Planned Infanticide, cutting spending, repealing Obamacare and securing the border. But time and time again, when given the opportunity to keep their campaign promises... They are revealed to be the true traitors to the GOP (and clearly, a vast majority of GOP voters) that they are.
I am proudly supporting James Dickey for RPT Chair and I am going to thoroughly enjoy his upcoming election to continue to serve in that role.
I appreciate you pointing out how wrong he is about Libertarians. Damn... so wrong. However, I also feel compelled to point out...
DeleteWe refuse to infringe on anyone's human rights - for some of us that means open borders, for some it means a massive overhaul to what we call out immigration policy right now.
We have both pro-life and pro-choice members; I am unapologetically pro-life myself, yet I refuse to allow Republicans and Theocrats to use this as a claim to my support, when I know they only care about it as a vote-getting issue. Government should have no voice here, as both sides for decades have lied, distorted facts, and manipulated we the people. At this time, we do not live in a pro-life culture, so it is the job of pro-life individuals to change the culture; that will not come through laws. Libertarians however are united in defining Planned Parenthood and ending all other corrupt corporatism. We aren't anti-road; we believe Taxation is extortion and no amount of well-intentioned socialist services makes it okay to hold a gun to a man's head and demand a cut of his earnings. Unlike Republicans, we believe in a free market that will allow us to flourish and thrive without theft.
We are not anti-military (as a whole... one or two lack some critical thinking on this one). We are vehement non-interventionists. Our meddling and policing and endless war has caused a 400+% increase in terrorism worldwide. We, through our theft-obtained tax dollars, are responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocents. Our military is necessary and we support self defence of our nation; but if this country really supported the troops, they'd stop sending them to die in fake Government spats. Libertarians oppose violence and aggression and believe was is always a failure and should be the utter final solution attempt.
Republicans within the general population are by a large margin, well-intentioned and conpassionate... however you have to look at the leaders and policy shapers of your party if you really think the party wants to move towards Liberty. War, forced flag worshipping, violence and tax dollars to support a police state, violence and tax dollars to infringe on rights of peaceful people to move freely, continued incremental infringement on the right to bear arms, increased surveillance, theocratic tendencies... this, sir, is not Liberty. If you truly want to see Liberty, we invite you to join us.
Lptexas.org
H S, thank you for your comment. Again, I know you Libertarians are for Open Borders, which in my opinion, is not the right position to have, but that is not my point. You must admit, you have lots of people who say they are libertarians, but not the "Big L" kind. Unfortunately for the Libertarian Party, these people have decided to infiltrate the Republican Party, rather than work in the Party that truly suits them. If the Libertarian Party is what you say it is, then why aren't they working in the Libertarian Party? These possibly fake libertarians support candidates who support mass deportation. How is it they support someone who, according to classic libertarian philosophy, is contrary to the principles?
DeleteDUKE - we Libertarians have Republicans trying to infiltrate our party. Can we just do an even trade??? ;)
DeleteDuke - I am not for Open Borders.
DeleteOpposite of "Supports mass deportation" = "Supports Amnesty."
I personally am not working in the Libertarian Party because..... I am not a Libertarian. To me, there is a LOT of cross over, sure. But I do not line up with a lot of their core values. This article summed it up perfectly for me... https://theconservativemind.net/conservatives-verses-libertarians/
"The main differences between conservatives and libertarians can be traced to what each sees as sacred, and what is merely held dear."
Duke, it's called Duverger's law.
DeleteYou have no idea what what you are talking about. Ted Cruz isn't even slightly Libertarian. You keep using the word and you have no clue what the word means.
ReplyDeleteLol. Exactly! He slithered right out of the very belly of the GOP.
DeleteRandy, Ted Cruz took Rand Paul's Libertarian base from him. Do you think that happened because he "isn't even slightly Libertarian?"
DeleteNo Libertarian I know supports Ted Cruz or identifies him as a Libertarian. As much as I love Dr Paul, him endorsing Cruz was stupid as they come. Ted Cruz is not a lover of Liberty.
DeleteIt was Cindy that said she didn't want the liberty faction in the party!
ReplyDeleteIm a Libertarian Republican, you could say that I am the former lead strategist for the RLC ...
ReplyDeletewithout me, the disorganized liberty and tea party factions couldn't have pulled it off. I made it happen.
and I love Trump. Everyday I get up and thank god that Trump is our President. Now that Trump is president, I understand why Cruz and Rand Paul couldn't be the next president.
And Hispanics are overwhelmingly attracted to the Libertarian Republican agenda. Hispanics love to fiesta and they love small government and small business.
Cindy is vocally and publicly opposed to Liberty Republicans and The Young Republican franchise. How can Cindy lead the party into the future when she is opposed to the two biggest growing Republican factions? The factions who do most of the work..
Speaking of work. The Liberty R and RLC worked there butts off the last six years and were rewarded with executive committee positions. I for one believe that the reward follows the hard work. How about you?
Thank GOd Trump is our President. Yes, Really!
NO Hispanics are NOT libertarian.. they are conservative. Quit trying to twist the words around. That is not what Cindy said you all are trying to twist the words around. the truth remains that James CUT all engagement from the PARTY! Bigger that that HE CUT the Hispangelicals from the PARTY! And the truth remains he can not fundraise! We should have millions in the bank with the FACT that we hold majority in the house, senate, and White House and he still cant bank on that! BUT BIGGER than that he has been accused for hedge fund fraud, plead the 5th, settled out, and HIS LICENSE WAS REVOKED! THOSE ARE the FACTS!
DeleteSaying it now and saying it loud - anyone who is still a supporter of Ted Cruz (it's okay to make a mistake and then move on to better choices when you realize you've been duped) is not a Libertarian - or simply has no idea what that word means. Ted Cruz is a big-government theocrat, authoritarian, war-mongering, neo-con. If he is your kid of guy, fine, but that is not Libertarian. Not at all.
ReplyDeletePreach it
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf the RPT were more libertarian, more of us liberty-minded activists would have stuck around. This may be the most ridiculous piece of revisionist history crossed with paranoia and ad hominem I've ever read.
ReplyDeleteThe RPT Platform says " we support the strict adherence to the original
intent of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutions of the United States and of
Texas".
If those aren't libertarian principles, I don't know what is.
Further: " Limiting government power to those items enumerated in the United States and Texas Constitutions."
Again, libertarian principles.
"A free enterprise society unencumbered by government interference or subsidies."
You guessed it: libertarian.
Perhaps you should also listen to former President Ronald Reagan: "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."
So I suppose you'd have had Reagan run out of the party as well.
Read beyond the principles and into the planks of the RPT Platform, and you don't read a libertarian document: anti-free trade, anti-immigration... the list goes on and on. If there's been a "libertarian takeover", it's the least successful takeover in the history of mankind.
It's stuff like this that led to me and others leaving the party altogether. Not to become Democrats, but to become independents.
Sorry for leaving this anonymously, I couldn't get it to let me sign in. My name is Dave Smith, and I approve this message. I'm available on Facebook and on Twitter at @SemperLibertas.
Duke, you are a real piece of work. Is your picture beside the word "hypocrite" on the dictionary???
ReplyDeleteI happen to know that you made calls for Thomas McNutt and Matt Beebe in the recent run-off, both of who are "Tea Party" and "Freedom Caucus" and are in the "Libertarian" (as you define it) wing of the party. You sure didn't mind the tea party when they supported your Hispanic Republican Club.
How do you stand yourself? Where are you trying to fit in?
This article is absurd. The divide is between traditional conservatives (ala Reagan, Ted Cruz, etc.), the "new conservatives" or "neocons", and moderates such as yourself, who have abandoned traditional republican principles for big government ideology. Has nothing to do with libertarians.
ReplyDeleteTed Cruz is not even CLOSE to a libertarian.... and he ran against a moderate (Dewhurst) who was funded by left leaning democrat groups...of course Republicans did not elect him.
I agree that the Ron Paul wing of the Republican Party helped cause the defeat of Mitt Romney, it was estimated about a million of them refused to vote for Romney in the general election. That was wrong, BUT they DID have a legitimate reason to be angry. The Romney campaign wanted an absolute coronation and love fest at the National Convention in Tampa, and they changed the National Party Rules at their meeting right before the National Convention to require that any presidential candidate who wanted to be formally placed in nomination had to have received a majority of delegates in a certain number of states. And just coincidentally, they made sure to establish that number to be greater than the number of states in which Ron Paul had received a majority of the delegate votes in the Primaries/Caucuses. So they excluded Ron Paul from being formally nominated, then to rub salt in the wounds they excluded him from making a prime time speech to the delegates. It could have been a wonderful opportunity for Dr. Paul to exhort his supporters to close ranks to defeat a greater evil than an Establishment Republican nominee: a lawless, treasonous, Marxist Democrat President. But NO, the Establishment Republicans had to change the Rules at the last minute and crush a fellow Republican who posed absolutely NO serious threat to the nomination. And if I am not mistaken, Cindy Asche's FATHER, Bill Crocker, was General Counsel of the Republican National Committee at the time so would have been up to his neck at the National Convention shutting out the Ron Paul wing of the Party. So NOW fast forward six years, Cindy Asche and her Establishment friends are grousing that her opponent, James Dickey, tried to change the Party Rules at the National Convention to favor HIS candidate for president, Senator Ted Cruz. More power TO him! Dickey did his job as a delegate, he fought for his candidate and for his candidate's principles, then when the voting was all finished and Trump had become the nominee, UNLIKE the Ron Paul sourpusses, Dickey supported Trump and has ever since. He even met with President Trump in the Oval Office, and Trump complimented Dickey at a recent Republican fundraiser in Dallas. So if President Trump is over it, then all you haters out there can GET OVER IT too! Mic drop.
ReplyDelete