Jack, republishing that opinion piece here generates ad revenue for the Almanac, so you may want to wait a few more days until Kiraly's piece is available from the Daily Post online archive, for $2, and direct readers there notepad.

On closer inspection, you have published the source PDF (not a scan) that could only have been provided by Kiraly, with his parent's permission to republish it. Please disregard my previous comment.

Paul Kiraly's parents should warn him about hanging out with morally questionable types:

"Three months before the November election, the California Republican Party is so awash in red ink that its board has approved laying off staff and vacating the party's main headquarters in Sacramento, The Chronicle has learned.

The crisis emerged after state party officials, facing an $850,000 shortfall in late June, fell behind in rent, phone bills, payments to Internet vendors and printers, and worried they would have to cut employees' health care insurance payments, according to several Republican sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Since then, party officials have reportedly negotiated down the debt, but campaign finance reports to be released Tuesday are expected to show the California GOP to be at least $450,000 in the red, multiple sources said." Read more: Web Link

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

"negotiated down the debt" is code for screwing the honest workers you hired to perform duties, then screwed them by paying the workers less than you promised.

Why would anyone trust these bozo's when they talk about TRUST or the ECONOMY or DEBT or the FREE MARKET???

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

More on how corrupt the GOP is:

"To rebuild the California Republican Party, Jim Brulte will first have to climb out from under a mountain of debt.

The former GOP Senate leader, who is expected to take helm of the embattled party next month, said Wednesday that the CRP is between $500,000 and $800,000 in the red, a figure he says could vary based on the potential for legal battles with former vendors.

"This is more like a bankruptcy workout," Brulte said of setting up party infrastructure as chairman." Read more here: Web Link

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Run away, Paulie the K, while you still can. Try the libertarians. You sound like a limited government kind of kid, take a look at REAL, LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Web Link

Your leader, Brulte, said it best:

"This is more like a bankruptcy workout"

Morally Bankrupt:
Here's a better link exposing libertarian principles:
Web Link

I am amazed that a student advocating limited government can exist in our government schools. There is hope.

Here is an unedited version of a letter I sent on this topic which was published in part by the Daily Post:
Editor, Paul Kiraly’s OpEd provided a much needed boost in confidence that the future of our country will be in good hands. Richard Wray (letters Mar. 13) points out that Paul fails to “explicitly” kick religion off the Republican platform. Paul clearly is not an exclusionist, and accepts people of all nationalities and religious beliefs, even atheists.
I do hope that Paul recognizes the dangers posed by faith based initiatives, which I refer to as “partnerships from hell”. One need only look at the long list of charitable organizations which accept Grants from the Sequoia Healthcare District, on whose Board I serve, to see how “formidable constituencies” can be bought with tax dollars. Recently, there were 61 applicants for District grants of which 43 survived. See: Web Link
They include St. Anthony de Padua Dining Room, Planned Parenthood, Catholic Charities, Peninsula Jewish Community Center, etc.
With leaders like Paul Kiraly, who believe in limited government, perhaps we can dissolve those government agencies which have fulfilled their original purpose. We can start with the Sequoia Healthcare District.

Jack: Paul will do in reading Cervantes and how the phrase 'tilting at windmills' applies here (and to every unrelated post that you drag SHD into!)

I also wasn't going to bring up how Paul and his family may preach limited government, but are first in line to insist that their PUBLIC schools are well-funded, their youth programs play on public fields or meet in public facilities, their church uses it's taxfree funds on untaxed land, etc..

Thanks Jack, for the help! Good luck on your next run for governor!

Morally Bankrupt: I'll leave the governorship to Paul or one of his associates. I had my soap box, and people are listening more and more. I have hopes that even you will see the danger in allowing obsolete government agencies such as the Sequoia Healthcare District to be used by those who would place the burden of unsustainable debt on future generations.

"I'll leave the governorship"

How many times did you run for guv? As a libertarian?

Morally Bankrupt - you nailed it re the Kiralys & their purposely limited view on limited gov't. But you forgot to mention those roads they drive on & street & traffic lights they utilize to help them operate safely in Menlo, where they can pretend moral superiority while benefitting from govt's beneficence.

Hmmm: thanks; yes, the list goes forever.

Just look at how they use the biggest of big government features...

THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM!

Republicans will do what they always do - generate careful lies that play on people's fears and misconceptions ... I'm hoping it doesn't work but it never pays to count on the intelligence of the American people.

Poor young lad was raised in a house running Fox and Rush and Beck. What's a poor boy to do?

Case in point: yesterday, Israel gave Obama its highest award ever. Given to civilians. Covered live by CNN ans msnbc. At the exact same time, over on Fox?

A 'report' on the evils of obamacare.

Followed by a Hannity commercial on how obama is anti-Israel.

Po' lil' paulie.... turn off the faux news network. Turn off AM talk radio.....

Well done, @FoxLies, it's a simple search.

While President Obama was honored at a huge state dinner and awarded the Israeli Medal Of Distinction, the highest honor a civilian can receive in Israel, Fox ignored the award and honor, instead ran this promo for the Hannity.

COMMERCIAL: "Obama: The State Of Israel will have no greater friend than the United States. Narrator: But with a friend like Obama are Israel’s enemies gaining strength. Sean gets expert insight on a special Hannity."

A special Hannity? Wouldn't a *special* Hannity, be the show that has Sean doing the whole thing without lying?

There's a screenshot flying around the web showing the screens of FOX, CNN and MSNBC at the moment yesterday that Obama received the Israeli award. MSNBC and CNN show our President receiving this high honor; Fox was bashing Obamacare.

the screenshots Web Link The Maddow clip on it Web Link wonderfully titled "This is not what Passover means"

Paul will learn. He's a smart kid. Even a kid raised in a propaganda filled household eventually wanders off the reservation when he learns there are other sources that provide actual news and fact.

The republicans lead chickenhawk for war, Dick Cheney, celebrates an important anniversery today! Fifty years ago today, Cheney got his FIRST deferment, of six, tostay out of vietnam, just so he could be the man to lie us into the Iraq war.

Congrats, dick.

Yesterday, 20 American heroes, our vets of the Iraq and Afghan war, committed suicide. Like the 20 the day before. And the 20 the day befoore that. And the 20 who will commit suicide tomorrow.

Mr. Kiraly, think long and hard about with whom you wish to be associated .

Paul: @dickcheney above, is introducing you to an important term

ChickenHawk: noun \ˈchi-kən-ˈhȯk\ - 2. term used to describe a person who strongly supports war or other military action, yet who actively avoided military service when it was time for him to serve his country

See also: hypocrite

See also: Republican

@dickcheney was incorrect above. Frequently referred to as commander of the ChickenHawk battalion, Dick Cheney only had five deferments. I forgot how many deferments his associate ChickenHawk pumping up the Iraq War, Rush Limbaugh, had, but his best excuse for not serving his country in time of war was a pimple on his behind (technically, a pilonidal cyst.) Go ahead, Paul, look it up.

Less humorous of course, is the number or Iraq War veterans we are losing every day to SUICIDE.

Unfortunately, again @dickcheney was incorrect above. America is losing, on average, 22 HEROES PER DAY TO SUICIDE.

Forbes, 2/05/2013: Suicide Rate Among Vets and Active Duty Military Jumps - Now 22 A Day

@dickcheney is correct about one item in his post: Paul, beware of associating with morally bankrupt republicans.

Here's a great list of 154 well known republican hypocrites, err, chickenhawks, compiled by the Live Free or Die New Hampshire Gazette - Web Link

Question: Why did Cheney get all those deferments?

Answer: "I had better things to do."

The man is scum and a coward.

Cheney had better things to do - like go hunt innocent animals, but shot a friend instead. What a scurrilous scumbag!

The problem is with Republicrats. A Ranked Voting system Web Link is needed if real change is to occur. I suspect that Mr. Kiraly is more aligned with the Ron Paul philosophy, as am I. I invite lurkers in this topic to take the World's Smallest Political Quiz Web Link to see where they fit in the political spectrum.


Paul said, "We want a socially liberal but fiscally conservative party." That's libertarian.

@Jack: "Paul said, We want a socially liberal but fiscally conservative party."

Which Paul, Rand or Ron? When and where?

Funny they'd say that, for many reasons, such as both Rand and Ron oppose the Civil Rights Act. And Rand has his 'life at conception' stance that forces a woman to carry her rapist's baby, and bans abortion even if it kills the mother. Ron wants the government in everyone's bedroom. That's only a step removed from the GOP's favorite government intrusion, trans-vaginal probes, in Virginia and elsewhere. (want a link for that?)

That's pretty BIG GOVERNMENT sounding to me.

I don't recall Ron standing up to support gay rights in the GOP debates. Recall the American hero, Army Capt. Stephen Hill, they all lustily booed at the Fox GOP debate on 21 Sept 2012.

Paul Kiraly said: "We want a socially liberal but fiscally conservative party." Web Link

Sorry Jack; you went from Ron Paul, to Paul. I lost track. So Paul K said: "We want a socially liberal but fiscally conservative party."

Don't we all? Of course we do.

But neither the GOP (Jack's republicrats) nor any of Jack's Libertarians have a proven track record of that. I can only think of one politician who has talked the talk, and walked the walk. He chalked it up recently to one word: arithmetic.

Paul K: seek out the only American President to cut spending in all federal departments (from the DoD to the EPA), created 23 million new jobs in 8 years, balanced several budgets (never done by the GOP) and left a budget SURPLUS for GW Bush to run up to a trillion dollar deficit. Who might that be?

William Jefferson Clinton.

And that's Fact, not the Faux News Network.

Arithmetic. Clinton talked about how it was done, last August. As Jon Stewart said: "Bill Clinton's Democratic National Convention speech ran long, but used more specific numbers than the Republican leadership did during an entire week in Tampa." Web Link

President Clinton nailed it at that convention: "In Tampa — in Tampa — did y’all watch their convention? I did. (Laughter.) In Tampa, the Republican argument against the president’s re-election was actually pretty simple — pretty snappy. It went something like this:

We left him a total mess. He hasn’t cleaned it up fast enough. So fire him and put us back in."

Web Link for the transcript of the speech though, if Paul K is interested in civil service, he owes it to himself to youtube the actual speech.

Enjoy.

Republicrats are the result of the 2 party system. Tweedle dee and tweedle dum. What's the difference? A Ranked Voting system is needed if real change is to occur.

Remember Ross Perot? wMF3

@Jack wrote: "Republicrats are the result of the 2 party system. Tweedle dee and tweedle dum. What's the difference?"

What's the difference? Ask a bunch of Vets who left arms and legs over in Iraq.

What's the difference? Tell us what happened when Bush and his GOP House were given a budget surplus (hint: Bush left a trillion dollar deficit)

I'm no fan of the 2 party system, but:
- there IS a difference between the parties, just not the difference you seek
- any discussion of hoping for a change to the 2 party system is fantasy, at least without genuine campaign finance reform

It's been a long time since I voted Republican for President. (Goldwater and Reagan). Before that, when Eisenhower entered the 1952 presidential race as a Republican to counter the non-interventionism of Senator Robert A. Taft, I voted for Taft.
With the exception of my vote for Ross perot, I have voted for the Libertarian candidates for the last two decades. This brings up the concept of the "wasted vote syndrome". A Ranked Voting system Web Link would solve that problem.

Demonizing the Republicans will not solve our problems.

From Wikipedia:
"Johnson escalated American involvement in the Vietnam War, from 16,000 American advisors/soldiers in 1963 to 550,000 combat troops in early 1968, as American casualties soared and the peace process bogged down. The involvement stimulated a large angry antiwar movement based especially on university campuses in the U.S. and abroad."
And, regarding who was "pumping up the Iraq War", I suggest a visit that you consider the efforts of Tom Lantos which can be viewed on youtube Web Link Watch the whole thing.

@Jack wrote, in trying to run away from his statement about the differences between the parties: "Demonizing the Republicans will not solve our problems."

If my presentation of facts about differences between the parties is "demonizing", what did you just do to the late President Johnson and Congressman Tom Lantos? Demonizing, meet pot and kettle...

Both Johnson and Lantos were wrong in their decisions. Johnson regretted his. Lantos was, of course, influenced by his position on Israel. Many of the other D's who supported the war were influenced by potential electoral outcomes, and will have to live with their decision. At least most of them have the balls to admit their error, as opposed to very few republicans who have apologized.

Walter 'freedom fries' Jones is one of them. Watch the documentary from last month (Hubris) to see his statement of regret. Quite painful to watch. Not a fraction of the pain or damage done to so many great members of our great military in Iraq, of course, but painful nonetheless.

I stand by the differences in the two parties. Half the Dems voted directly against the war, and many suffered electorally for it (sitting minority leader Daschle in 2004, for example.)

Want to list the republicans who showed the courage to vote against the Iraq war and suffered at the polls?

I'll wait...

The national GOP is Morally Bankrupt.

Of course, in California, the GOP is also financially bankrupt.

I'm not interested in "outing" the the villains in either party.

I repeat my earlier post:

"Editor, Paul Kiraly’s OpEd provided a much needed boost in confidence that the future of our country will be in good hands. Richard Wray (letters Mar. 13) points out that Paul fails to “explicitly” kick religion off the Republican platform. Paul clearly is not an exclusionist, and accepts people of all nationalities and religious beliefs, even atheists.


I do hope that Paul recognizes the dangers posed by faith based initiatives, which I refer to as “partnerships from hell”. One need only look at the long list of charitable organizations which accept Grants from the Sequoia Healthcare District, on whose Board I serve, to see how “formidable constituencies” can be bought with tax dollars. Recently, there were 61 applicants for District grants of which 43 survived. See: Web Link


They include St. Anthony de Padua Dining Room, Planned Parenthood, Catholic Charities, Peninsula Jewish Community Center, etc.


With leaders like Paul Kiraly, who believe in limited government, perhaps we can dissolve those government agencies which have fulfilled their original purpose. We can start with the Sequoia Healthcare District.

Constituency building with taxpayer dollars begins here.

@Jack: yes, you are trying to co-opt a young republican as a libertarian - good luck with that! You're better off pulling a Ron Paul - co-opting stoners with your support of eliminating drug use laws! Add in some of Ron's strange gold fixation, and you almost have a cult!

Almost.

You repeated your original post; I'll repeat mine, and I guess we're done.

Paul Kiraly's parents should warn him about hanging out with morally (and fiscally!) questionable types: (ie.. hypocrites, commonly refered to as: republicans!)

"Three months before the November election, the California Republican Party is so awash in red ink that its board has approved laying off staff and vacating the party's main headquarters in Sacramento, The Chronicle has learned."

Watch who you hang with, Paul!

If the party still held to Mr. Kiraly's values, they'd be the dominant party, and they could be so without voter suppression nor electoral college rigging.

Since Lyndon Johnson, a Southern Democrat signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the GOP has followed a Southern Strategy of courting segregationists, some of whom became their most powerful senators. Add to this the embrace of televangelists, and the crusade to drive environmentalism from school curricula.

Then add the decades-long campaign for corporate rights driven by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Justice Lewis Powell, culminating in Citizens United. It is not by accident that course material is being offered to schools that denies man-caused climate change.

What pro-environment consideration that led to legislation under Nixon is long gone.
The exception is when lawsuits are filed to block renewable-energy projects, typically funded by groups backed by the oil billionaire brothers who inherited their fortune.

The misrepresentation of intelligence and profiteering in Iraq, as well as the "creative
financing" to fund the war in concurrency with tax cuts add to a train of baggage for which there are simply not enough porters and bearers in the world.

To those are criticizing Paul Kiraly, I think he has more courage than all of you put together. What have you done to try to make things better? You criticize his parents and family but probably don't even know them.

Morally Bankrupt: thank goodness Paul doesn't have you as a parent! Not because of your thoughts but because of your judgmental comments about someone you don't even know. With people like you around, no wonder politics has become a spectator sport.

Fox lies to Paul: how do you know what is watched in Paul's household? Talk about speculation and being judgmental. Maybe, he doesn't watch TV at all, which is why he was able to write his guest opinion and articulate his thoughts better than you. If you had any sense, you could see that Paul is not influenced by "Fox and Rush and Beck;" otherwise, he wouldn't have written what he wrote about being socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

Kudos to Paul for having the courage to express his opinion, whether you agree with him or not.

Morally Bankrupt: the judicial system you're referring to was not abused by Paul or his parents, if you're referring to his mother who has been sued by someone who IS abusing the judicial system-- John Woodell and, probably behind the scenes, Kirsten Keith. Talk about abusing the judicial system! It's hard to believe that Keith is actually an attorney, especially if she can't see how backed-up the judicial system is.

After reading some of these hilarious posts, it's very clear that Paul's critics have not actually read his guest opinion. Thank goodness there are students like him who actually think critically and have the courage to present an unpopular view, instead of idiots like Morally Bankrupt, Hmmmm, Fox lies to Paul, dick cheney. I doubt you know Paul, and based on your comments, your intolerance to different views wouldn't hold a candle to Paul's well-articulated opinion.

@LOL: "...because of your judgmental comments about someone you don't even know."

Yes, I do in fact know Paul K. And his mother. Though I've certainly met his father several times, in all honesty, it's been so long that I probably couldn't pick him out of a lineup.

Now, about @LOL's lies: I have not criticized Paul K.

I repeat: I have NOT criticized Paul K. You are lying about that.

Nor am I intolerant of his views. I have merely questioned whom he chooses to affiliate himself with. Surely you'd agree that to suggest to a BANKRUPT STATE GOP that is laying off workers and negotiating debt, that the BANKRUPT STATE GOP should "...emphasize our core principles of ... fiscal responsibility" is placing the cart before the horse.

Pretty humorous, actually.

@LOL: "Talk about speculation and being judgmental." You brought up the phrase 'judgmental' several times, and then conclude "instead of idiots like Morally Bankrupt, Hmmmm, Fox lies to Paul, dick cheney."

Nothing quite as judgmental as calling someone an idiot, eh?

Back to my point: The national GOP is Morally Bankrupt. Of course, in California, the GOP is also financially bankrupt.

Morally Bankrupt: I doubt you actually know Paul and his family. If you do, have you had the courage to discuss his guest opinion? I'm sure a few posters would like to hear about any conversations you've had with Paul and/or his family. Please share.

@LOL: first you come in and call other posters "idiots".

Then you lie about my having criticized young Paul K.

You neither address the topic nor defend your falsehoods; instead, you demand details of intimate conversations as some sort of straw man.

Nice try. Are you one of Paul's teenage peers?

Whether I am or not is not the issue. I just don't believe you know Paul and his family, and I certainly don't think you have any "details of intimate conversations," although you would like people to think that you have.

You said, "I also wasn't going to bring up how Paul and his family may preach limited government, but are first in line to insist that their PUBLIC schools are well-funded, their youth programs play on public fields or meet in public facilities, their church uses it's taxfree funds on untaxed land, etc."

How do you know? I don't think you do. And, yes, I would call this a criticism, especially you don't know. Paul is obviously in a public school for which his family pay taxes. Have you asked him what he considers "limited government?" Yeah, I didn't think so.

@LOL: "How do you know? I don't think you do. And, yes, I would call this a criticism, especially you don't know."

There ya go. Kind of says it all right there.

re: "How do you know? I don't think you do." "Have you asked him what he considers "limited government?"

How do I know? I read Paul's piece, unlike you. It said "...with limited government interference in our personal lives." Try reading it.

[Portion removed; challenge the idea, don't attack the poster.]

Nice try.

Morally Bankrupt: I don't think you can read. "Limited government in our personal lives" means having the Republican stay out of people's personal lives. There's nothing that says anything about not supporting public schools, roads, fields, etc.

Who said anything about "friendship?" Now that you bring it up, though, it's very clear that you loathe Paul and his family. It's obvious that you are no friend of theirs, so how much credibility should you be given as to whether you really "know" Paul and his parents? None, I think.

If you think I'm one of his peers or "a lot younger," wow, I wonder why you would spend so much time attacking a kid. [Portion removed; challenge the idea, don't attack the person.]

@LOL continues with the straw man and ignores the topic: "It's obvious that you are no friend of theirs". I never said I was their friend. I clearly explained that to you in a previous post, yet you keep coming back to it, because you have nothing. It's similar to your not understanding Paul's column and having to re-read it over and over again.

Pretty odd series of posts. First wanting detailed information about whether I know Paul, then spinning around with "...so how much credibility should you be given as to whether you really "know" Paul..."

After calling other posters "idiots", you stay with personal attacks: "You're sick, man."

Wow.

Again: Nice try.

Morally Bankrupt completely misses the point of the Paul Kiraly's guest opinion. Kiraly espouses socially liberal and fiscally conservative views. Period. It's very simple, and the kid makes a lot of sense.

Morally Bankrupt, "nice try" at twisting something that's simple to grasp. Paul Kiraly is obviously much smarter than you!

@Outside: "Kiraly espouses socially liberal and fiscally conservative views."

YES!!!!!! Ding, ding, ding, we have a winnah!!

"Kiraly espouses socially liberal and fiscally conservative views" to a state party that is virtually financially BANKRUPT and has no clue what fiscal conservatism is!!!!!!!!

YES!!!!!

Yet again: Beware Paul, who you hang out with!

The national GOP is Morally Bankrupt. Of course, in California, the GOP is also financially bankrupt.

Will Morally Bankrupt quit using my call sign?

Morally Bankrupt,

Paul's ADVICE to the Republican party is to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

Bill Seckler is correct...
"If the party still held to Mr. Kiraly's values, they'd be the dominant party, and they could be so without voter suppression nor electoral college rigging."

@outside: I agree. IF the GOP was fiscally conservative and socially liberal, they would be more popular, but dominant? A GOP senate full of Joe Lieberman, Arlen Spector and Susan Collins'? Oh yeah, that'll happen.

The GOP claims at the top of their voices to be fiscal conservatives, all evidence shows they are clearly not. They have proven it over and over again. Therefore, they are either liars or hypocrites.

Hence my advice to Paul K: watch out for those with whom you profess to associate!

Liars and hypocrites.... morally bankrupt, ie.. Republicans.

I find it disturbing that so many Americans acknowledge, without apparent compunction, the GOP's voter suppression and election rigging activities. Just yesterday, the GOP in North Carolina moved to reduce voting hours.

Sad days.

Wonder what young Paul thinks of that? Perhaps he can google for Ms Desiline Victor, an American who had to wait IN LINE for three hours to vote last year. Three HOURS standing in a line that barely moved.

Not just an American.

An American hero.

Ms Victor was 87 years old when Paul was born. She is now 102 years old.

It's about much more than be 'socially liberal'.

It's about not being morally bankrupt.

Ms. Desline Victor voted in Dade County where the Democrats reign supreme. So you can blame the long wait on the Democratic Party Machine in Dade County. If the Democrats weren't so busy getting dead people and illegal immigrants to vote then perhaps the wait time would have been shorter.

And as far as North Carolina is concerned. Everyone, regardless of political affiiation has the same time constraints. Perhaps morally bankrupt is complaining that the Democrats will vote fewer times in the election with the shorter hours.

@Prevaricator: you are well named, indeed, you do "stray from or evade the truth"

In Florida, the hours of voting are decided at the state level, not the county level. If they allowed more early voting hours, along with weekend early voting hours, more poor and working people would vote.

And the thing republicans can't stand is more poor working people voting!

As far as election fraud in Florida, the only one I can recall is Ann Coulter's case. Please feel free to list any documented cases of dems "getting dead people and illegal immigrants to vote" or Dems voting multiple times.

While we wait for your proof, here's something for Paul K to consider:

"12/7/07: ANN COULTER, VOTER FRAUD FELON, GETS AWAY WITH IT - Two Years After Initial Slam-Dunk Allegations First Documented, Reported, Florida Election Commission Decides Two Year Statute of Limitations on Case Has Run Out
Another Republican Vote Fraudster Skates in the Sunshine State..."

image of Coulter's felonious voter registration and oath affirming Web Link

What does it even mean nowadays to be a social liberal & fiscal conservative? It made sense, at least as a sound bite, 20 years ago, but currently I have no idea what it looks like.

Hmmm:

What it looks like is Libertarianism.

"Libertarianism"

Funny, all the well known libertarians (ie.. the Pauls) are for Big Government in bedrooms and big government making family planning choices for women.

And Ron Paul wouldn't even speak up for the gay Army Captain in Iraq that was booed by republicans at the GOP debate.

While Rand Paul wants an amendment that would ban many forms of hormonal birth control, AND forcing a woman to bear her rapist's child, even if it medically risks her life (see his personhood amendment.)



Sounds like big government, to me.

Both the Paul's have already been exposed on their opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1965.

So, the Pauls are pretty much just hypocrites then. And, oh yeah, morally bankrupt.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

"Flood insurance bill stalled over…abortion?

(CNN) – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is lambasting Republican Sen. Rand Paul for injecting a last-minute debate over abortion into a bipartisan attempt to pass flood insurance legislation.

"After all the work that's been put on this bill, this is ridiculous that somebody said 'I'm not going to let this bill go forward unless I have a vote on when life begins.'" Reid said Tuesday on the Senate floor.

On Monday, Paul introduced the amendment, which calls for defining life as beginning at conception. The bill at large would re-authorize the National Flood Insurance Program, a federal entity that offers flood insurance to more than 5 million homes. "

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

There's your leading tea party libertarian!!!

Yeah, when I think of flood insurance, I think of pregnant women & I demand to know when their fetuses were conceived!

Rand Paul and his ilk are not true libertarians. Not even close. They are libertarian in name only. They like to call themselves such, but they aren't by any stretch. All one needs do is go to the libertarian web site and see what they actually stand for.

Web Link

Hmmmm (scratching my head, not responding to the above poster,) hmmm, libertarians claim a manifesto, yet have no elected officials who represent their manifesto at the national or state level. No nationally known icon who can sell the libertarian pitch?

They deny Ron and Rand Paul as libertarians?

LINO's?

;-)

Hmmm, sounds like a cult, or a fringe party that can't elect a soul, like the CUSA.

Looking at the libertarian "party" website, I'm leaning towards cult.

Can't you picture the following off a cult site?

"I resolve to keep from being drawn into arguments or debates. My purpose is to inspire people to want <cultlike product> — not to prove that they’re wrong." (actual line from the lib "party site)

or...

"I resolve to listen when people tell me of their wants and needs, so I can help them see how a <cult goal> will satisfy those needs."

Yeah, I'm smelling cult-like marketing.

How about this one?

"I resolve to sell <cultlike product> by appealing to the self-interest of each prospect, rather than preaching to people and expecting them to suddenly adopt my ideas of right and wrong."

Thank you, Menlo Voter, for educating me to the dangers of the libertarian cul.... err, umm, I mean libertarian "PARTY": a sham site full of cult-like marketing, a fringe group with no national or state elected officials.

No wonder Jack is targeting young, impressionable types like young Paul K.

Paul K: again, beware with whom you associate! Let's all thank Menlo Voter for his valuable public service in warning young teens!

Y'all have a good day, now....

;-)

Yeah, liberty is a "cult like" goal.

What country do you live in Morally Bankrupt?

Libertarian? Think Milton Friedman. See "Milton Friedman - The Free Lunch Myth" YmqoCHR14n8Web Link for an example of libertarian logic.

"Yeah, liberty is a "cult like" goal."

I said the marketing on the front page of the LP is cult-like. Add to that no state or national level presence, ie.. real results, and the LP seems about as effective as a cult.

As far as cult goals, aren't they usually appropriating some wonderful reason? Nirvana, happiness, peace, fulfillment, a deity or two? So this one hides behind the mantle of Liberty.

;-)

So "What country do you live in"?

Well, Menlo Voter, I live in a country that doesn't require one cul..., ummm, "party" to hijack Liberty; Lady Liberty, or otherwise. (Yes, the LP also hijacks a French statue as part of their marketing logo.) The country I live in has Liberty and all it's protections built-in, without the need for a cul..., uhhh, "party" to state on the frontpage of it's website:

"I resolve to sell <liberty> by appealing to the self-interest of each prospect, rather than preaching to people and expecting them to suddenly adopt my ideas of right and wrong."

I'm always a little worried when any party sells it's goals with Freedom, or Liberty or Patriotism. Seems that gets us into a lot of trouble (see: Bush/GWOT/Iraq, etc..)

so long for now....

With Liberty and Justice for all, truly yours.... MB

;-)

The problem is with Republicrats. A Ranked Voting system Web Link is needed if real change is to occur. I suspect that Mr. Kiraly is more aligned with the Ron Paul philosophy, as am I.

Has anyone taken the World's Smallest Political Quiz Web Link to see where they fit in the political spectrum?

Paul Kiraly said, "We want a socially liberal but fiscally conservative party." That's libertarian.

@Jack: @menlovoter above claims that Ron Paul is a libertarian in name only.

Ron Paul didn't defend the Army Captain booed by the republicans at the GOP debate.

Rand Paul wants to outlaw hormonal birth control (the 'pill', see the flood insurance post above) and then have the government force a woman to carry her rapist's zygote to term, whether it's incest of not.

Neither Paul support the Civil Rights Act of 1965.

How does that meet Paul K's " socially liberal " ?!?!?!? Sounds rather, oh, let me think, yeah, here it is: morally bankrupt!

(Lucy, you got some 'xplainin' to do!!)

It is highly unlikely that one can find an individual with whom they agree 100% of the time. And, I'm sure there are parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 with which you or I might disagree. Whether or not that disagreement is a dealbreaker warranting withholding of support is an individual decision. Take the quiz.

Neither the Democrat or Republican Party support an end to the "War on Drugs". Is that "socially liberal"?

@Jack: yes, I'm going to look at someone who would vote against the Civil Rights Act as NOT socially liberal.

I'll label someone who forces a woman to carry a zygote product of incest or rape as most assuredly NOT socially liberal.

And your buddy Ron Paul, who sat on his thumb while republicans booed an Army Captain at the GOP debate, is not socially liberal.

I'm with Menlo Voter on this: the Paul's are LINO's.

Morally bankrupt LINO's, running as republicans.

That is, hypocrites.

Any other LP's out there at the state or national level? Yeah, I think not. The very definition of 'fringe'.


Beware, Paul K, with whom you associate!

I look to the Paul Kiralys' of the world to "think out of the box" on libertariaan issues to address questions such as:

Are student achievements in government schools made because of our "compulsory" system or in spite of it?

Is the loss of personal freedom resulting from the "War on Drugs" justified? How much does it cost? What is the cost of collateral damage.

How can we shut down government agencies which have fulfilled their voter approved mission, such as the Sequoia healthcare District.

You won't see typical Democrats or Republicans taking on those issues, unless they are stirred to action by the likes of Paul Kiraly.

Morally Bankrupt said: "No wonder Jack is targeting young, impressionable types like young Paul K."

I have hope that you too are "impressionable".

Shall we get on to solutions of problems created by government?

First step is to acknowledge that such problems exist to a degree that threatens the sustainability of our Constitutional Republic.

@Jack: thanks for showing Paul K that you can't argue with the fact that Ron and Rand Paul, so-called libertarianism's biggest stars, are morally bankrupt hypocrites.

So yeah, we can all look at the things like peace, love, personal fulfillment, worshiping a deity, small government, freedom, liberty etc.. and find a fringe cul... uh, I mean "party" and pin our hopes and dreams on said fringe group.

I too find it personally refreshing that Paul K wants to *work* within the system and reform, rather than be part of some fringe that pines away nostalgically or tilts at windmills. Jack, quit trying to co-opt young republicans into you LP fringe.

Of course, I've made clear my opinion that Paul K is approaching it with the wrong team (fiscal bankruptcies, hypocrites, etc...) but I value his contributions of working the system to be more successful than, say, a completely wasted exercise in ego, such as running for governor as a commie, a green, or a libertarian, etc..

Been fun boys and girls, but I'm outta here!

good day, all, may you you have a blessed journey... MB

. . . . . . .

Cult: [kuhlt] Noun: 4. a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, IDEAL, etc.

"Shall we get on to solutions of problems created by government?"

sorry, jack, that's off topic.

This topic was about you co-opting Paul K's young republican post, as libertarian hi-jack!

Feel free to start another thread.

oops, my bad! Of course you will!

No where did I hear an adult congratulate young Paul K for participating in the democratic process, writing an article, both of which show he is engaged and thinking. Congratulations, Paul.
Last I checked this is still America where we have freedom of speech. Yet most of the responses are spoken with forked tongue. Too bad. No wonder the youth are bullying one another instead of using communication to discuss problems and issues. As adults, we should model by discussing issues and citing fact,not name calling. By example, perhaps the young people will lead our country down a less divided path.

MB did offer backhanded praise to Kiraly, as others praised hum.

MB did something far more important for a youngster -- he steered him clear of an undesirable element, as you or I would hope any adult would do for our kid when they are beyond our reach or influence.

Brulte himself told Kiraly that running the state repub party was an exercise in bankruptcy.

How much more hypocrisy do you need -- fiscal conservatives?!? Shessh! What a load of hooey! Then along comes Jack Hicky to ride on Kiraly's coattails..

Concerned's comments are right on! Thank you for your "teaching moment" to all of us!

Undesirables' comments are ridiculous. Plus, I completely disagree that MB "did something far more important for a youngster" by steering "him clear of an undesirable element." Trying to impart an opinion as fact is not the way to have a meaningful discussion. Fortunately, what MB did was show that Kiraly's guest opinion struck a nerve that continues the discussion on the TS of an article that wasn't even published in the Almanac! And, it shows how closed minded people can be IMHO.

Whether anyone here agrees with Kiraly or not, in the end, he has been effective in his communication because even a month after the CA GOP convention, there's still a discussion going on! Congratulations, Paul!

Kudos to Kiraly! I agree with Concerned. With posters like MB, Hmmm, and undesirables, no wonder the youth are bullying one another instead of actually communicating to discuss problems and issues. As far as I'm concerned, Paul is very lucky to have not have parents like them!

concerned and agree with concerned don't get it, first calling other posters RIDICULOUS and then accusing the others of bullying! just by pointing out the CA GOP, the party of so-called "fiscal conservatives" is BANKRUPT!!

THAT is ridiculous! And extraordinarily close-minded!

The GOP state chair, Jim Brulte, told Kiraly that running his abysmal bankrupt party "This is more like a bankruptcy workout"

"This is more like a bankruptcy workout"

Incredible. Too bad the small, close minded (using her words) want to shield their young-uns from reality.

And themselves.

Paul Kiraly will do fine. He'll see it, if his adult protectors quit shielding his eyes.

Green Party and undesirable-

Perhaps, I missed it in the Kiraly's guest opinion, but I didn't read anywhere that Jim Brulte told Kiraly that the CA GOP "is more like bankruptcy workout." I believe that came from another poster, so I wonder if you've even read Kiraly's article.

Thanks for sharing our opinion that you think Kiraly will do fine, "if his adult protectors quit shielding his eyes." I'm sure many people don't agree. Again, I applaud Kiraly for effectively communicating to the public and think it's great that this discussion continues a month after the CA GOP convention ended.

CORRECTION to Green Party-
Thanks for sharing YOUR opinion that you think Kiraly will do fine...

concerned: I know it wasn't listed in the article, but surely if Kiraly was talking fiscal conservatism with Brulte, the CA GOP bankruptcy must have come up.

Kiraly is too young to be consuming that kind of koolaid, isn't he?

from Caliitics:

The former GOP Senate leader, who is expected to take helm of the embattled party next month, said Wednesday that the CRP is between $500,000 and $800,000 in the red, a figure he says could vary based on the potential for legal battles with former vendors.

"This is more like a bankruptcy workout," Brulte said of setting up party infrastructure as chairman. "First of all you have to pay off your debt, hopefully while you're doing programs simultaneously. We have to increase our income and reduce our expenses, that's just prudent." (SacBee)

The irony of the party that touts itself as "fiscally conservative" in a fiscal mess is, well, funny. But the problem for Brulte is really far deeper than some cash.

The party is basically irrelevant, Democrats have or will have supermajorities in both chambers of the Legislature, and all of the state constitutional offices. Brulte will have to get contributions despite all of that. On the other hand, if you look at the efforts to restore the financial situation of the CDP in 2009, they had a strong wind at their backs. Brulte has none of that.

Brulte is also facing the big schism in the GOP, that is, the party is tearing itself up over "electability." The grassroots right-wing base has been creating havoc, nominating characters like Todd Akin. Top-2 somewhat distorts that here, but there is still much of that grassroots vs establishment angst in the CRP here. That Karl Rove, who is currently launching a war against the most unelectable of the extremists, is the featured speaker of the upcoming convention does not help that point.

Brulte faces an enormous task: make the CRP relevant again

He's on a good path. In his call for a kinder conservatism, Kirlay needs to study recent history and the abject failure to our country of Compassionate Conservtism.

He needs to repackage, rebrand and then re-market it, otherwise folk will laugh it off.

Maybe the alphabet networks should tell the news as it is not how they want to sway the public!!!!

Initially reading these posts, while humorous, I thought "morally bankrupt" was teasing a little too hard in warning Paul Kiraly to 'beware with whom he associates'.

Then I read some of the posts from the far right fringes regarding President Obama's visit, and yes, "morally bankrupt" was prescient:

- "he only campaigns, golfs, and takes elaborate vacations" What? Really? No absolutism in that comment!!

- "He's proved to be little better than his predecessor." Ha! All numbers prove otherwise, but why let facts get in the way: Bush left office with a negative 8% GDP, the country bleeding jobs at 800,000 per month. "little" better? Blind fool.

- " love to attend but have a CPUSA meeting" at least this one is an attempt at wit. Failed, but at least tried!

- " His leadership has been weak and extreme and certainly has not brought about the positive changes..." Again, all evidence to the contrary - see Bush GDP and job losses.

- "he has been a big disappointment to many who voted for him" Again, all evidence to the contrary. The anonymous folks who post drivel like this are liars, trolls, fools, or just unable to read and comprehend numbers.

But for real fun, Paul, go over to the PA Online threads, in real time, and try to catch the birthers and their posts before they are deleted!

Those are the folks you choose to associate with.

Fiscal conservative, socially liberal. Uh-huh.

A question, Paul: aren't you going about this backwards?

Converting the GOP to be socially liberal seems a ridiculous challenge, in light of the various examples around the country, such as multiple GOP state governments spending ALL their energy outlawing abortion clinics in their states (Dakotas, Mississippi, etc..) We also all know the GOP is NOT fiscally conservative when in power (Reagan tripled the debt, Bush 43 doubled the debt, etc...)

Isn't it easier to go over to the Democratic side and work on fiscal conservatism with them, and have all the socially liberal issues already settled?

Not as big a job as the naysayers might have you believe. After all, as eluded to above: who was the last REPUBLICAN president to balance a budget? Maybe Lincoln, I suppose. Possibly Hoover, as he created the Great Depression. Last Democrat? Yup, the Big Dawg, Slick Willy himself, the man reviled by the GOP for creating budget surpluses, Bill Clinton.

You will be happier and far more effective in achieving your stated goals, working within the Democratic Party.

Fiscally conservative, socially liberal: can you name a single GOP leader who meets that criteria? Can you name even a handful of active republicans left in the party that meet that description? Nope. All driven away.

Step away from the Dark Side, young Luke Skywalker.

Brulte is brutal; that quote of his about his bankrupt party is an indictment:

"This is more like a bankruptcy workout"

Big Dawg Clinton said:
"Isn't it easier to go over to the Democratic side and work on fiscal conservatism with them, and have all the socially liberal issues already settled?"

I don't see democrats ending the War on Drugs. Paul would be better advised to work for implementation of a Ranked Voting system Web Link The two party Republicrat system needs some competition.

Mr. Hickey - it seems that the hypocrisy of the very few well known libertarians in America has been highlighted above: against civil rights and wanted big government in our bedrooms.

For those just following, see the comments highlighting Ron Paul (not defending an Army captain booed during Paul's GOP debate) and Rand Paul (wanting the federal government to outlaw many forms of birth control and force women to bear the children of rape via his 'personhood' law) as well as both being against the civil rights act that has meant so much to this great country.

Wouldn't Paul Kiraly find it easier to work with Democrats to support Clintonian fiscal conservatism, a proven success, instead of working with a virtually non-existent national Libertarian party whose only known leaders are flaming hypocrites?

Paul Kiraly - I also applaud your interest in public service. Whichever path you choose, study of the big dog, Wm. Clinton, will be most enlightening.

A case study of two political figures alone: the irony of the GOP Reagan myth (a supposed fiscal conservative who tripled the debt) and the reality of Bill Clinton (whom the GOP can barely acknowledge, let alone celebrate for budget surpluses) will be quite an education.

A big Arkansan 'huzzah' to Paul Kiraly!

____Debating which of the two parties, tweedle dee or tweedle dum better serves "We the People" is an exercise in futility. IMHO, Ross Perot or Harry Brown, or Joe Lieberman would all have better served "We the People". The two Party system, which has both parties boxed in, is the problem. Rewriting history will not solve that problem.
____Constituencies (a.k.a. special interest groups) spawned by a benevolent government using tax dollars have these two parties competing for their support.
____A Ranked Voting System would provide an opportunity for all of us to vote our first choice without the danger of a wasted vote. Applied in all elections, this would provide an opportunity for individuals who "think outside the box" to get elected..

Paul Kiraly - great to see you invloved!

Jack Hickey: this column is about Paul Kiraly, who lives in the real world (nominally, as a young republican) not some fantasy world where the Libertarian Party is a viable option.

The LP can't win under any system any more than the Communist Party can. Their two widest known figures are hypocrites, ferchrissakes! If you disagree, start by naming nationally elected LP's. Or California state wide LP's. Guv? LG? AG? Cal Senate?

Start a new post about fantasy solutions or if you stay here do Paul Kiraly a favor and keep it real.

I spent many years as a Republican. I am familiar with the CRA, CRL, Young Republicans, YAF, etc. I had the endorsement of the Republican Liberty Caucus for my Performance and Accountability Voucher for Education (Web Link Web Link
I have chosen to affiliate with the Libertarian Party. Many of my associates have decided to pursue libertarian principles (such as those espoused by Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand) via the Republican Liberty Caucus. I would hope that young Paul Kiraly shares those principles, and is pursuing them in a venue of his choice.

Great posts by the Big Dawg himself (right?)

Kiraly will find a much more successful road to "fiscal conservative/socially liberal" by working with Dems to support Clintonian fiscal policy within the Democratic party, opposed to the immovable boulder that is the GOP on social issues. Hell, it took Portman's son coming out of the closet before he moved!

One notes that Jack won't answer the questions about the indicators of success for the libertarians nationally - because there aren't any!!

Paul K: do not sentence yourself to the wasted efforts of fringe party misery, a lonely old life tilting at windmills. Work with your best opportunity for socially liberal fiscal conservatism - the Democrats!

Great call, Big Dawg.

Looking forward to seeing you on Colbert.

Big Dawg neglected to share with Paul a couple republican fringe righties and their comments on another Almanac thread:

- Posted by *****, a resident of the Menlo Park: Downtown neighborhood, on Apr 4, 2013 at 6:52 pm "Maybe on his next trip he can provide us with his birth certificate befoe he takes all the loot!!!!!"

and

- Posted by *****, a resident of the Atherton: other neighborhood, on Apr 4, 2013 at 6:02 pm "How can this private trip be justified? He has changed nothing. You can keep him. Barry- the quintessential UNDOCUMENTED."

These are the type with whom you associate, Paul, when you hang with the GOP.

Your article shows you are clearly too smart for this type.

The thing about Kiraly joining the state repubs is that there is a lowbarrier to entry. The party is decimated, defeated and bankrupt. The few losers left will gladly take him and with his brains he can leapfrog up the ladder, to mix metaphots, much faster than in the competitive market, ie... the democrats.

How bad is the Republican brand?

So bad that some key GOP websites don't tell you they are Republicans!

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) doesn't bother on it's home page to tell you they are Republicans.

Why a Republican website without Republicans?

"One possible reason for the omission: The Republican brand has seen better days. The latest CNN Poll found that 54 percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of the GOP, while fewer than three in 10 say they have a positive view of the Republican Party. Just over two-thirds of respondents say the party favors the rich and nearly half think the GOP’s policies are too extreme." Web Link

Once the proud party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower. Now the party of Bush, Rove, McCain and Romney.

Ouch. I'd run for the hills, too.

Jack Hickey, Bill Maher had a remark to help with your rebranding the libertarians:

"New Rule: Libertarians have to stop ruining libertarianism…or at least do a better job of explaining the difference between today's libertarian and just being a selfish *****."

See: "The Virtue of Selfishness" and "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.
It would not surprise me to find that young Paul Kiraly has digested these along the road dealing with the usustainable status quo.
They are valuable tools.

Ayn Rand? The russian speed-freak who wrote that trash (while on benzedrine)?

It's such a realistic concept (in a drudgery of a clunker of a tome that could only be written by someone that high on speed) that it includes a perpetual motion machine (Dagny's motor.) Yeah, let's base a political belief system on that! Of course, the hero(s) are always correct and everyone else is always wrong (sound familiar?)

And didn't Ayn Rand later use the biggest of big governement programs to avoid personal bankruptcy: social security and medicare?

Please tell me that every big name Libertarian (let's see, that's what? maybe three?)is not so obvious a hypocrite...

The LP is a fringe party with no elected officials at any significant state or national level. Even Rand Paul spent most of his day this week at Howard defending Republicans!

When not lying about his opposition to the Civil Rights Act.

Someone calling themselves "Green Party" calling the Libertarian party "fringe." <snort>

Menlo Voter got it! Sorta disappointed it took so long, though!

8-/

Yes, I am a registerred Democrat who tends to vote green when the Dem is safe (as they always are for the state and national offices around here.) The recent exceptions are Obama (while clearly winning Calif, I felt that Mitt47% needed to know how unpopular he was across the counry) and Jerry Brown (Meg was so distasteful, and it wasn't clear to me until the end that Brown would beat her by so much.)

Green:

it was only four hours. I don't live on these boards ;-)

Fair enough, but my first post was April 3. I missed some posts too. But glad you got it an appreciate the <snort>

Green, you wouldn't have to worry about the "wasted vote" if we could implement aRanked Voting System. Maybe Paul Kiraly can promote that system.

Jack, as much as you try, Paul is a young Republican, not a libertarian. My guess is his choice is because he sees opportunity with the weakened CA GOP, whereas there is no opportunity with the LP.

So why would he get on board with ranked voting? Silly for that to be your default response almost every post.

Green:

sorry, but, no one but the democrats have a chance of getting elected in this state anymore. The Dems hold the majority in both houses and the governorship. It will be interesting to watch what they do with that power. Personally, I don't have a lot of hope.

I agree with Menlo Voter. Right now, every single statewide office is held by a Democrat and they have super majorities in both houses.

Let's see what they do. At least they won't have anyone to blame!

The Dems are in charge because the Republicans are, to use the moniker of a previous poster "morally (and financially) bankrupt". The state would be better served by a strong GOP, but they just suck, sorry, they REALLY do. Meg ran just so she could cut her cap gains taxes. The GOP can't stay out of our bedrooms. They have no new ideas. They really just suck as a political party. Even when they try to talk the talk, they can't walk the walk - Christ, as someone pointed out above - THE STATE GOP IS A WALKING BANKRUPTCY.

That isn't good for the state.

"That isn't good for the state."

Neither is having only one party in control. "Absolute power corrupts, absolutely." Not that they're not already corrupt. It's just easier when there is no one to push back. Let's just see what happens.

I don't have high hopes.

Menlo - apologize for not being clear: that's what I meant - the current pathetic, bankrupt state of the CA GOP isn't good for California; the Dems do need a competitor.

If the CA GOP stays on the stupid path it's on, they will not be a competitor down the road any more than they are today. They need to clean up and recognize reality of the California voter, and with a big assist from the Dems (overstepping perhaps, or possible arrogant overreach,) the Republicans may actually get elected to something in the future.

Jack: rather than go off topic with ranked choice yet again (7 times?) why not open a forum on on?

Green:

we agree! The GOP is on the road to making itslef irrelevant in national politics as well if they don't figure out that rich white guys aren't the only constituency in this country.