Francesca Chambers @ Red Alert Politics:
The fissure between the GOP establishment and Tea Party members in Congress blew wide open Monday evening when conservative members of Congress were suddenly removed from House financial committees.
RedState’s Erick Erickson was the first reliable source to share that conservatives were reportedly being removed from the House’s finance related committees by Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio).
Shortly after, Roll Call reported that Rep. David Schweikert of Arizona had been removed from from the Financial Services Committee “for bucking the party line too often.”
“This morning Congressman Schweikert learned there was a price to be paid for voting based on principle. That price was the removal from the House Financial Services Committee,” Rachel Semmel, Schweikert’s spokesman,told POLITICO. “We are obviously disappointed that Leadership chose to take this course, but Rep. Schweikert remains committed to fighting for the conservative principles that brought him here.”
Curiously, conservative Rep. Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina was selected to replace Schwikert on the committee, potentially undercutting conservative’s complaints that Schweikert was removed for political reasons. Likewise, sources with knowledge of the situation indicated to both POLITICO and Roll Call that committee changes were made at the request of committee chairs. Meaning incoming Financial Services Committee chairman Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, who is currently the GOP Conference chair, not Boehner, could be responsible for snubbing Schweikert.
A great reminder of what the GOP is. . . another facet of the democrat party. The same great minds who Gerrymandered Alan West out of office. I’ve not missed an election since Nixon and voted GOP 90% of the time. Didn’t vote for a single GOP candidate this time, and won’t again.
People can caterwaul all they want about me “wasting my vote”, but at least my Libertarian vote reflects my values. . . how about you folks who keep Boehner in power?
@JustAl: The word ‘libertarian’ was coined around the time of the French Revolution and its meaning was closest to that of the liberal party of today. It was co-opted by the conservatives in the 1960’s because it sounded good. When used to define conservative politics, it should be used with the qualifier ‘conservative’—Conservative Libertarian.
@Liberal1 (Objectivity):
First known use of “Libertarian” was in 1789, “one who holds the doctrine of free will” (opposed to necessitarian), from liberty (q.v.) on model of unitarian, etc. (See William Belsham below)
As usual you are way off base. If you are referencing the Democratic party, you’re full of horse doody. You are clearly referring to the first political adoption of the word 1, rather than the first known philosophical literary usage of the word. There are big differences between the classic meaning of “libertarian” and the French word “La Libertaire” which was used to describe a (circa 1857, 155 years ago) French socialistic-anarchy movement publication. The left-wing French communist Joseph Déjacque coined the political term “Libertarianism” to refer to the belief system of the radical anarchist left. The radical Whig historian William Belsham wrote Essays, Philosophical, Historical, and Literary, two vols. 1789–91, where He used the term libertarian in a discussion of free will and in opposition to “necessitarian” (or determinist) views. This predates the first French socialist movement’s adoption of the term by some 70 years (in fact, 223 years ago). The philosophical roots of libertarian thought goes back even farther, supporting the rights and freedom of the individual over the power of the elite classes.
Well that certainly isn’t ideology of the Democratic Party of today nor of the 19th century French Libertaire movement.
“Liberal” is no longer an applicable term for the far-left devotees of the Democratic party. Which is why I refuse to use that term to describe them. They are in fact very fervently and stringently conservative to their pro-statism ideologies of the power of the state superseding the rights and freedoms of the individual. The Democratic(-socialist) party of today is in other words, on the exact opposite end of the scale from classic libertarian philosophy.
Note that the ACLU has never defended the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The philosophy of the earliest Libertarians (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon of “Cato’s Letters,” John Locke, ):
That doesn’t sound like the Democratic Party. More from pre-French Revolution libertarians:
Nor does that sound like today’s Democratic party. Cato’s Letters declare:
Now that does sound like Obama’s administration of government, today’s Democratic party and the government following the French Revolution.
And:
The Tea Party movement of today is closest to the classical definition of “Libertarian” (The Libertarian Party differs in that it refuses to accept the power of government to regulate business or trade whatsoever.) More on Libertarianism Here is another very good description treatise of “libertarian”
my humble opinion here is that I think from other days he had a chance to do it meaning,
get the the blame where it belong , that is OBAMA,
he let him go away with a lot, I go further to say that he has a responsibility part in the influence of showing up the values of the party, which his good guy style miss on a few occasions,
the last time he came to FOX, HE WAS ANGRY, AND ALL HE HAD TO SAY WAS,
I’m a nice guy, I ‘M ALWAYS POLITE AND GOOD MANNER , BUT OBAMA IS NOT RIGHT,
HE DOESN’T WANT TO GIVE IN,
he has the OPPONENT that is not for mister nice and well manner, maybe he is not of the caliber to exchange similar rhetoric, this is a jungle in there, you have to talk the language of the beast to make him understand that you mean business, not a game of GULF,
rise the talking point, or delegate to a GINGRISH, or a TREY, or a CANTOR, OR ,THOSE KINDS OF TALKERS,
one reason MITT ROMNEY LOST, TOO CLASSY, TOO NICE GUY, TO OFFEND HIS OPPONENT,
THIS WAS NOT A ELECTION LIKE THE OTHERS, YOU WHERE DEALING WITH, TWO PERSONS SEEKING THE SEAT,
THIS ONE WAS A MULTIPLE OF PERSON IN ONE BODY,
BEING COUNSEL BY MANY OTHER
LIKE THE BEAST WITH MANY HEADS FROM THE BIBLE,
AGAINST ONE GOOD MAN HAVING BEEN FOUND TO HAVE THE SKILLS TO SERVE AND HELP THE PEOPLE
TOO DEPRESS TO HELP THEMSELVES