Posted on 11/07/2013 4:59:55 AM PST by Kaslin
Cuccinelli was a loser when the Republicans decided to nominate by convention and, so, froze out the moderate Lt. Governor. Without that, it is probable the Libertarians wouldn’t have gotten their candidate on the ballot. (They usually don’t for Governor, and only succeed in this state for President with outside help.) Nevertheless, Cuccinelli came close because of the disastrous Obamacare roll-out, which makes his loss frustrating.
Take-away:
Republicans should pass legislation saying that ballot-qualified parties will nominate by primary. If the Republicans want the parties to be able to hold closed primaries, then have voter indicate their party affiliation when they register. Since registration is closed 30 days prior to an election or primary in this state, that would effectively preclude gaming the system.
Disgusting.
What else is this “Purple Pac” up to? I’ve never heard of them. The name is very curious, it suggests bipartisanship (or homosexuality).
In American political development let US begin to realize what this Townhall contributer Derek Hunter in his essay doesn’t do. Let’s start with the root of the word Libertarian which is “Liberal” and add that word into his essay Thusly
“The word (Libertarian) no longer has any meaning”, (to become neither words Liberal, and Libertarian) and contine on with Hunter’s assertions “ no definition or parameters, certainly no coherent philosophy to speak of. And there’s no one to blame for that except (then add the word Liberal and ) Libertarians themselves.”
“By not even loosely defining the parameters of a set of beliefs, Libertarians allowed their brand (as did the Liberals)– as it was – to be hijacked by anyone willing to wear the label. They went from the movement for individual responsibility, small government and free markets to a gaggle of misfits who want pot and prostitution legalized and a total non-interventionist foreign policy. That pretty much sums it up”. Then leave Hunter’s killer statement of fact on todays “Libertarians “stet”. “Honestly, what does being a Libertarian mean beyond legalizing drugs, banging hookers and sitting by while the rest of the world blows itself up?”
Rush Limbaugh freely uses the term “Liberal” to describe todays so called “democrats” Jefferson the founder of both political partys who was a “Liberal” must be flipping over in his grave when he does this.
Todays Democrat party merged with the communist/socialist group after its 2012 booing G—d National convention. If we go looking for the proper political identification of what they are they should be classified as hypehnated; Not “Liberals” or “Progressives” but Demo-Coms.
Only if you think that 6% would actually vote Republican if the Libertarian candidate wasn’t on the ballot. I doubt we’d have gotten more than half of that.
The word no longer has any meaning other than a different version of progressive tyranny, certainly no coherent philosophy to speak of except what the ruling establishment elite foists on its base And there’s no one to blame for that except Republicans themselves.
So what happened? By not enforcing their defining parameters as a set of beliefs to be adhered to, principles over the party, Republicans allowed their brand to be hijacked by any progressive willing to wear the label.
They went from the movement for individual responsibility, small government and free markets to an establishment ruled progressive party with little more than a watered down version of their oppositions beliefs and goals.
A party set in a total interventionist (Policeman of the Earth) foreign policy that along with it`s progressive pro-government growth stance and open borders policy seeks to bankrupt and also fundamentally change the country as we have known it.
That pretty much also sums it up.
Honestly, what does being a Republican mean beyond a liberal lite philosophy that also leads to tyranny, open borders, and getting our brave young men and women killed in a foolhardy attempt to bring civilization to a bunch of psychotic, bloodthirsty, neolithic savages?
You seemed to be missing some of the reasons why so many are absolutely sick and tired of your party, just wanted to clear that posting up a bit,bring a little perspective.
With a tagline like mine - would you expect anything less from me concerning this article except...
“Damn Straight!”
This is the first I’ve heard of Purple Pac too…..does sound like some bi partisan bullsh-t idea…..very strange.
Need a waaah-mbulance?
Actually - you need a clue. The Tea Party is essentially libertarian?
You need a BIG clue.
As I've said here with some frequency.....
FR 364 days of the year: "You libertarians are all dope heads. You hate God and the flag, and we suspect you're a bit light in the loafers. Get out of conservatism, get out of FR, and don't let th' door hit you on the way out."
FR the day after election day: "Hey, how come you libertarians didn't vote for our guy??"
PS - fwiw, it was clear to me that Sarvis was a faux libertarian, I certainly would have voted for Cooch.
pps - like your handle, love the Known Space books.
You didn’t read the article - did you?
If you stand by that claim, you may as well argue for more liberals (same thing) and RINO’s.
And to hell with Tea Party conservatives like Ted Cruz.
Issues on which all conservatives and libertarians could agree.
What it is now, I'm not so sure.
You are confused and conflicted. There is NO similar ground in which socons and libs stand on when it comes to fundamental issues.
Does your claim to individual freedom extend to pro-abortion and pro-homosexual views?
Yeah? Well then I guess you ARE a liberaltarian. But you certainly are no conservative.
Follow closesly the direction Ted Cruz is going. He epitpmises the future of the Tea Party.
Me too. I am a vote for the person, not the party guy.
Niven is a great Sci-Fi writer. Ringworld would make a fantastic movie.
According to Ronald the great, at the heart of conservatism is libertarianism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You lie.
There's a plethora of good competition for the title of "Sleaziest Person in the Clinton Universe." The Clintons themselves naturally attract such individuals. McAuliffe is only one candidate. Two nominees here: Sidney "Sid Vicious" Blumenthal and Harold Ickes.
FReepers are invited to submit their own nominations.
The organized libertarian movement, including the LP, is a joke.
That many, many voters, for whom personal liberty is paramount, are somehow voting FOR DEMOCRATS is not a joke, it’s a disaster.
One of the important trends in politics these days is the swift rise of Libertarianism, a movement that will edge its way to center stage as the 2016 presidential candidates begin to jockey for position after the mid-term elections.
Libertarianism declares that government has grown bloated, and needs to shrink its way out of the lives of individuals. To those sentiments, many of us would say a hearty “Amen.”
But just a moment, please. There are reasons to pause, because in its exuberance to place individual liberty on a pedestal, Libertarianism throws out way too much. For example, it would eliminate all pro-life laws, putting itself in the same camp as Planned Parenthood. The platform of the Libertarian Party is quite specific about this and goes so far as to say:
“Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.”
And there is more. Regarding marriage, the Libertarian platform is equally dogmatic: “Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.”
That statement is fraught with danger for the weakest among us, who, as always, are the children, both born and preborn. What sort of people would we be who care nothing for the rights of children in the womb, nor about the sheltering family structure in which the children who manage to escape the womb alive are reared? The Libertarian impulse on sexuality is reminiscent of the Free Love movement of the 1960s, and have we not seen enough cultural decline since then to conclude that laws curbing sexual promiscuity should be reinforced, not abandoned?
The Libertarian view on sexuality actually works against the party’s professed desire to reduce the size of government, for irresponsible sex produces irresponsible parents whose dysfunctional habits require more police to answer more domestic violence calls, and more social workers to rescue more children from abusive environments. Were Libertarian leaders to think this through, they might join us in pressing to reinforce laws that protect the family rather than for policies that weaken its very definition. That alone would reduce the size of government.
But the Libertarian impulse in today’s politics gives rise to an even more basic concern, and this goes to the very quality it prizes the most—personal liberty. For liberty cannot be maintained apart from the presence of an even more fundamental quality—virtue. Virtue helps people do what they ought, not merely what they want. In Western civilization our notion of virtue arises from Biblical principle, and it is not for nothing that the writings of the Founders, as they wrestled through the knotty problem of how to keep liberty from degenerating into chaos in the new nation, referred to the Bible far more than to any other source.
Libertarians profess strict neutrality toward religion, neither curbing it nor promoting it. Their platform is silent on God, and does not cite any transcendent source for the liberty it holds so dear. Thomas Jefferson, for one, had no doubt about the source of that liberty, and his famous words are succinct: “The God who gave us life gave us liberty.” That concept reverberates across the nation’s founding.
As the contours of the next presidential campaign begin to emerge, my fervent wish is that the Libertarian Party would grapple with the full contours of liberty that all of us prize, and find room in its platform for the True Source of this cherished American principle.
Tom Minnery is the senior vice president of government and public policy, Focus on the Family.
That's not even Ron Paul's position any-more than he would eliminate laws against murder. Both Paul's are anti-abortion.
Minnery loses me there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.