Who speaks for us in today's age? It hasn't been Bush or the "Republican" Congress. Where have you gone Ronald Reagan? Have we forgotten what you showed us to be possible?
While I agree with you on the need for much less government, the Liberterians are for open borders and legalized drugs. Sorry but only dopers can really make that a platform in their party.
Very long but very interesting points, also. I like the part about some people may agree with the LP on medicinal marijuana but not on legalizing heroin.
If the republicans blow it, I will vote all democrat for the sole purpose of hastening the end - puting the US mercifully out of it's misery.
I will then get a can of gas, some matches and a fiddle...
Kewl...was the wackadoo who ran for governor awhile ago there? You know the one who hawked a giant loogie on the radio announcer...
 |
"The witches in Macbeth play a serpentine role, as in the Garden of Eden, telling Macbeth to take and eat of the fruit of the tree – but Macbeth, like Eve, is the one who must reach up to the tree to pluck the fruit, the serpent merely tempts. Or like Christ’s temptation in the wilderness, Macbeth is seduced by the witches with dreams of glory and power; unlike Christ, Macbeth does not rebuke the witches but heeds them." |
This is his most important point. You have to build a constituency at the grass roots level before you can hit the top. In local elections, party affiliation doesn't matter as much, because you can meet voters belly to belly.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.And the purpose of winning?
This question is quite deceptive. On reading the article up to this question, it would seem that the proper wording would have been:
The question, therefore, is whether or not the Libertarian Party will be prepared to take advantage of this window of opportunity and finally join with the Democrats in order to become a true, competitive ballot-box alternative to the Republicans, thereby ensuring a permanent return to Democratic party hegemony.
Mr Chuck Muth proposes that "...if you want to be a political party, then you need to WIN elections to significant offices. THAT?S the measure of an effective political party."
Oh? I guess Mr Muth does not follow public policy innovations very closely. The most successful party in the 20th century on changing government economic policy never won an election. The most successful party on changing social policy also never won an election. Those two parties, the Communist Party and the Socialist Workers Party, didn't need to win elections. Mr Muth just does not get it.
He also does not quite comprehend the meaning of being a loser. He thinks winning elections is the only way to win. But having seen a good number of politicians abandon the pledges they made to supporters after winning and being socialized into the select winners circles, it becomes quite easy to comprehend that all those supporters were the big losers even with their winning candidates.
Putting the slightest amount of critical thought to any part of the rest of his advertisement, will show point for point, just how phony his political opportunism is. If he is successful, the Libertarian Party will become just like the Republican Party, splitting each others votes, and providing the democrats a sure win in every election.
I don't know if he is actually an opportunist, phony libertarian, or a decrepit libertarian. But one thing is for certain, the current Democratic Party cavalry operation going on in the rear of the conservative Republican movement, that is the current Libertarian Party operations, need more Chuck Muths operating if their to succeed.