Just so you folks know, Frank Roche said in this interview that B.J Lawson conducts himself more as a Progressive than a Libertarian or Conservative. It was a jaw dropping, accurate analysis and WTPF removed it from this clip. That's a real shame guys.
I had wondered what I was seeing in Lawson's failed attempt to take this seat in the last round, and Roche hit it right on the nose. Mr. Lumaye, I thought you were fair...now, I believe you might favor Lawson over anyone else. We the people will decide this election, not you and your airtime alone.
FYI....the correct definition of a carbon tax is "Carbon dioxide is considered to be a heat-trapping "greenhouse" gas, and the purpose of a carbon tax is to protect the environment by penalizing emissions of carbon dioxide, which may cause global warming." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_taxBJ Lawson...don't try talking in circles...it doesn't work....you said in this interview that carbon tax was not a cap and trade tax?? I, and the constituents of this district does not want to be double talked. We want someone who is going to say what they mean, and mean what they say....and my friend, that is not you. Mr. Roche...you have my support.
The smears of the vocal few with the establishment status quo GOP will not drown out the cheers of the vocal grassroots majority in support of BJ Lawson. We the people who support limited constitutional government stand firmly with BJ Lawson and we look forward to passing out another 50,000 pocket constitutions this election cycle.
I'm philosophically more libertarian than Republican and was unaffiliated for years because I didn't buy into the corrupt morals of either party but I have serious doubts about BJ. After repeatedly saying he wouldn't run he now changes his mind because David Price snuck up to Washington over Christmas to vote for healthcare reform? Where has he been all year. Did anyone else in the 4th district have any doubts that Price would vote for it? That just doesn't feel like an honest answer. Frank's been working for months to build his campaign and has shown his strong dedication to getting the job done.BJ says he supports the FairTax but then backtracks and says he doesn't want to tax everything and would prefer to tax things we don't want. That's the type of social engineering the Progressives are pushing and there's nothing fair about it. Frank Roche was initially hesitant to fully support the FairTax because of how difficult it would be to pass. He now supports the concept even though he admits it will be difficult to pass. You can't say you support something and then present your own version of it.Here in Chatham County BJ was a major supporter of the Plenty, an alternative currency that was heavily promoted using some really deceptive claims by the Progressives in the area. That involvement made me really question BJ's judgement.I have a great deal of respect for Ron Paul but I don't see BJ having anywhere near the conviction to principles that Ron Paul exhibits.
Anyone listening to that interview could clearly hear that Roche is talking the blah, blah rhetoric and is in it for himself only. Lawson is a very principled family man with experience as an entrepreneur and medical provider. Roche says he wants to lower taxes and then strengthen our defense??? Uh, our defense spending is what helped us get into this horrid economic mess in the first place!
Correction....I would go back further in time, it was the Community Reinvestment Act that TRULY started this whole economic mess. Yes....wars cost. But please do not incorrectly state where this mess started and making this about the war.
The "jaw dropping" 33 seconds referenced above can be found on Thursday's audio post title, "Missing 30 seconds." Judge for yourself.Thank you.
I heard the Roche-Lawson debate on your show yesterday, and I have to admit, I thought Lawson went around in circles without answering a lot of the questions put to him, especially re: the carbon tax. I also get the sense that Lawson has difficulty with arriving at precise understanding on a lot of the issues - in short, he doesn't know what he's talking about, but hopes that flinging a lot of verbiage at us will distract us from seeing it. Roche was also right on the money in pointing out that a lot of Lawson's positions are "progressive," not conservative.The GOP in the 4th district needs to go with someone who knows the issues and is a solid conservative. I've heard Roche speak about the health care issue, and he demonstrates a grasp of the issue that few others have. If the libertarians like B.J. Lawson, then let them run him on the Libertarian Party ticket. The GOP needs to dump the RINOs and go with a solid conservative like Frank Roche.
"Progressive"? Listen up boys and girls - American politics is a game of two opposing views - liberals and conservatives. Anyone who's interested knows there are not three teams on the field.Those that call themselves "progressive" are simply liberals with low self esteem. Lately some conservatives have started to call liberals "progressives." You're just mudding the waters people. Ya'll need to turn off Glenn Beck and step away from your radios! The reason I called in and told ol' BJ he needed to drop out of the race is because he's a looney Libertarian. There's little doubt that he can attract the "Coast to Coast AM" voters but that's not enough. The sweet little old ladies, the retirees and us conservatives who are the backbone of the Republican Party will simply not work as hard (or at all...) for a man labeled as "The Next Ron Paul" by supporters and a "the right person to partner with President Obama" by his Democrat friends! Hey, this ain't all that complicated - if the Independent Weekly doesn't hate you the National Republican Party is not going to waste much time or money on you. The hard cold truth is it will be nearly impossible to defeat Representative Price. Mr. Roche seems like a decent fellow but at this point we just don't know if he can unseat Mr. Price. However, what's clear to anyone with any political experience is that a divisive oddball like ol' BJ is not the one who can do the nearly impossible.
Le, are you the "he's a dadgum libertarian" guy? I thought your call was hilarious, and I'm frankly not sure BJ Lawson knew what to make of it.Regarding "progressive" - I PREFER to use that term to describe those on the Left, rather than the term "liberal." "Liberal" originally described those who believed in less government and more freedom - that definitely doesn't apply to those on the Left today! In fact, I even wrote a lengthy essay on this very topic - Part 1 and Part 2. I refuse to allow these people to get away with suggesting that their belief system is in any way associated with "freedom"!
BJ is being much too thoughtful to survive the "sports team" mentality that has overtaken the American political process of electing representatives to make governmental decisions for us. At the present time, BOTH Parties seem to be selling their own version of big government and continued BIG spending. The difference can only be found in what the money is spent on and even those differences are shrinking.The leadership of both status quo Parties are doing their darnedest to ignore the grassroots outrage at the out of control SPENDING that is putting the future of America at risk. It is sad to see that the votes will probably go to the candidate who has the best command of the necessary rhetoric to capture the loyalty of the partisan sheep, _thoughtful solutions to real problems be damned.
Hey Titus - Yep, that was me trying to wake ol' BJ up that day. I don't think if he's got enough decency or smarts to put aside his pretty boy vanity and that looney agenda of his and get behind someone who can actually win - but I had to try. Hey - just think how much better we'd ALL be if people had tried to talk sense to ol' President Urkel! Listen dude, I'm a recovering college graduate, I understand these classic definitions of left and right. Now just ain't the time to start throwing dictionaries at the voters. The people who are wrecking this country already have a name with a lot of stigma attached to it - they're called liberals. Hey Ann Louise - Gosh, Ol' BJ is hiding that "thoughtful" side pretty well so far! Sorry you're not comfortable with this recent vicious and aggressive "sports mentality" but honey, we used to kill one another over political differences. Some of my ancestors up there in the mountains were on "the wrong side" in the Civil War and had to carry pistols for the rest of their lives! Rarely does a candidate win because they "deserve" to. Urkle sure didn't deserve it, neither did Clinton but they worked hard and people got caught up in both candidates misguided passions and they were elected. Basically the only things wrong with our political parties are: 1) The liberals took over the party of slavery and segregation and and kept it alive when it should have died and 2) For almost 20 years conservatives have been living their lives (growing businesses, giving their kids a great start, saving for the future, etc.) and not holding Republicans accountable. Republicans and Democrats are now having to answer for their mistakes! No use setting around and saying "woe is me, for the politicians on all sides are acting like a bunch of politicians..." - Pick a side and get busy!
There is another candidate. His name is David Burnett. Please check me out at: electdavid2010.com