How bad would Sherrod Brown be in Mike (D)eWhine's seat?

[IANALY]

. . . calling Democrats as a whole traitors is not particularly accurate, nor is it productive I suppose. Especially when holding Republicans up to be the 'obvious choice.'

1. Remember, this country was founded on libertarian principles. What seems like obvious 'conservative' solutions to national issues are just as offensive to the principles the nation was founded on. Take for instance sneak-and-peak warrants, no knock warrants, vast swaths of warrantless searches, searches that are actually non-searches as far as the courts are concerned - these are principles brought to us largely by republicans. Similarly, our current crop of "republicans" has brought us the largest government bureaucracy ever - the dept of homeland security - and a giant handout for the sake of political and emotional grand-standing - prescription drug benefits. These programs would be anathema to our constitutional founders.

Yes, republicans are "better" than democrats, generally, when it comes to firearms rights - but not because it has to be that way. Indeed, if republicans are seen as "radicals" and democrats as "revolutionaries" the democratic ideals should be trumping the armed populace to challenge the status quo.

Neither party respects the purpose of the second amendment, which was to ensure that tyranny would never come to pass by ensuring that the citizens of the country, collectively, were always stronger than the army of the country. Beyond that, the second amendment doesn't matter. It wasn't put in the constitution to protect your right to protect your family from a criminal - that you might be prevented from doing this was never contemplated by the founders. The second amendment exists to protect your right to protect your family from the government, whether that sounds "crazy" to people in our modern age or not.

2. Mike DeWine SPONSORED the renewed AWB. That is active participation in attacking firearms rights. Moreover, there is only ONE message that can be sent by voting for Mike DeWine:
"Dear Republican Party,
Although I care about my right to keep and bear arms, I don't care about it enough to change my vote from republican candidates. Please interpret this to mean that, as a party, you needn't respect firearms rights, because I'll vote for you no matter what you do."

You're concerned with what happens if Democrats gain power in the Senate. I'm concerned about what happens when the republican party all of the sudden realizes that it doesn't need to support firearms rights to win. EITHER scenario carries the same consequence for firearms rights.

As a libertarian, I find no comfort in trusting either party. Democrats want my guns, Republicans want government agents snooping through my house when I'm not home and creating a registry of firearms through a warrantless search provision for "business records" - from my local gun store. Republicans want to "modify" posse comitatus to allow the army to come in during times of "disaster" (as declared by the president) to control citizens, democrats want to disarm citizens in times of disaster so that "only the police will be allowed to have guns." Fundamentalist republicans want to sit in my bedroom and tell me what positions are and aren't ok, progressive democrats want to teach the kama sutra to third grade children to make sure their parents don't leave anything out.

There is no truth in sweeping conclusions that one party is superior to another. At least not where your primary concern is individual rights.

There is truth to voting on the principle that the person you send to Washington must be as they claim to be and support the ideals of those who sent them to Washington. DeWine is none of this, he's a space filler in order to prevent a "full on" democrat from having the seat. In my opinion, that is more offensive than having the Democrat there in his stead. 6 years of a democrat might just motivate the Republicans to remember their promises from 1994.

[TunnelRat]

I can remember a time (this is gonna give my age away...) when there were two poltical parties and it didn't make a dime's worth of difference which won the election. That is no longer the case. If Dewey had beaten Truman, would anybody really care today? If Eisenhower had been defeated by Stevenson, would it have been a disaster? I doubt it. Had Nixon beaten JFK in 1960 would there have been a lot of difference? I don't know. The two parties did indeed have different ideologies, but both stood for a strong defense, personal freedom, and a constitutional republic.

In such a time refusing to vote for your party's candidate was a valid method of ballot protest. Let 'em learn a lesson and run somebody better next time. It worked because, even if the other guys won, we had the confidence that they would abide by the rules. These days that is no longer so.

I have never been a fan of weevil voting. I hate what the modern political parties have become. I would dearly like to see Mike DeWine looking for an honest job. However, not only has the Republican Party fallen down on its responsiblity to provide us with a decent candidate, so also has the Democratic Party.

The title of this thread has to do not with replacing Mike DeWine (a very good idea in my opinion), but with replacing DeWine with Sherrod Brown. Brown is a certifiable anti-gun lunatic. Putting him or anyone like him in a position of power would be a stunning victory for those who hate us, and would encourage them to no end -- and that's before he even moves to D.C.!

I fully and heartily agree with you that this is a terrible way to run a republic and a shameful way of voting. But the choice given us, according to this thread, is not between dumb and dumber, but between bad and worse.

[JU-87]

GWC wrote:

In a race between Dewine and Brown, a vote for a Libertarian candidate is a vote for Brown.

No, actually it is a vote for a Libertarian! You see, I don't belive in a "Two party only" system.

TunnelRat wrote:

For me a lot will depend on how things are looking toward the end of the campaign season. If things are really close, I may vote for the sorry Pubby, solely in order to keep Sherrod Brown out of office.

A very sad possibility, but can we trust the pollsters?

I'd really love to see a third (maybe fourth) party gain some seats in congress, but if we all are scared/worried/tricked into voting for party "R" or "D", a viable third party can never take hold.

[GWC]

Whether you choose to believe in a two party system or not, that does not change the fact that we have one. As the Democratic party breaks up (which is what's is happening right now, and has been happening for some time), another large party will emerge to replace it.

US politics have been dominated by two parties for over 200 years, and that is not going to change. Occasionally one or the other party will disappear and be replaced by another, new party. Or a "third" party will emerge for one election cycle, but the dynamics of our electoral system naturally gravitate to two large blocks. Any other way, you cannot win.

I used to be a strong supporter of the Libertarian Party, and always voted for their candidates (when there was one). But they have no chance of attracting enough voters to elect anyone other than an occasional local official. Even Ron Paul gave up and ran as a Republican, where he succeeded to get elected.

So I allied myself with the Republicans for the duration of the emergency. The Emergency being the democrat power grab to take my guns away, my property away, and to give my cash to those that refuse to contribute to society.

I have no illusions about the Republicans, after all I came of age during the Nixon years. But the Republicans believe in enough of what I believe in that I am welcomed by them to be part of libertarian wing of their party.

The Democrats made me unwelcome indeed unless I bought into every part of the program. I know of what I speak, I used to work for the Dems, and I was an union member for 14 years. I simply got tired of being told what to think by my "betters".

So believe what you want about the two party system. Its here to stay regardless.

[IANALY]

. . . as a Libertarian I firmly believe that in the end, Libertarianism is most strongly associated as a whole, with whatever party is not in power.

This is because of the inevitable consequence of power - greed for more power. During the previous period of general democratic control - up until about 1994, libertarians could safely ally with republicans because the party out of power always seeks to limit the power of government. From 1994 to 2001, republicans still had some of this mindset, because they didn't yet realize they were in power. But starting in 2001, the republican party has abandoned the thought of a limited government, because all of the sudden they realize that they have the power, and what better to do with power than . . . get more power.

Slowly but surely the Democrats are starting to realize that they aren't in power, and within the next 3 to 5 years, I think you'll see them begin to adopt solid positions on limiting government power. At that time, the center of mass of libertarian politics might just shift back over to the democratic side of the political spectrum - albeit to a significantly changed democratic party.

Unfortunately, in a power hungry society, it seems that the party that doesn't want the government to have much power is unable to gain enough power itself to put its policies into effect. It's truly unfortunate.

[45 man]

For everyones information De(WHINE )wine has an opponent running against him in the primary named John Mitchell a retired LT/Col from the
air force he is pro 2nd A conservative and believes in a national Ccw.
I wroteDE(WHINE ) wine a letter expressing my displeasure in his support of the assault weapons ban His response we have too many guns out there. I responded with when the Primary rolls around we are going to put him in the ranks of unemployed . He is a prmia donna who needs to get a real job he comes from a bastion of liberals in and around Antioch and Yellow springs Ohio. I Also have informed Vionovich he is on our list of future unemployed if he continues his anti 2nd A position. As you can tell I can stand to hear DeWine Whine when he talks He'd make a good poster boy for Girly Men.

My rant is over
cocked and Locked
45 man

[dan_sayers]

His response we have too many guns out there.

So destroy them. Don't pass legislation that will make sure they reside in the hands of the criminals.

[TunnelRat]

For everyones information De(WHINE )wine has an opponent running against him in the primary named John Mitchell

John Mitchell is a nice man, and no doubt he means well, but he has a snowball's chance in a warm oven of ever defeating DeWine. Perhaps in the primary we can "send a message" to DeWine that we don't care for his activities, but I would be very surprised to see him beaten.

[MadisonMark]

as I have already told him, I will always vote for his opponent

Mark