Posted on 07/14/2004 10:15:52 AM PDT by Onelifetogive
He is a Libertarian I can vote for.....
I wonder if Republican Party "operatives" are going to try to get him to drop out of the race, and pull a Nader on him... NAWWWWWWWWWWWWWw..
So was Dr. Ron Paul, now a Republican congressman from Texas,(a registration that the Libertarians "wink" at), the Libertarian Party's 1988 Presidential Candidate.
Supports gay marriage.
Looks like he'll be taking votes from the radical left!
Dan
I hope so...
I am a member of the Executive Committee of the local GOP. I am beginning to question the effectiveness of my support of the GOP. As soon as they got some power, they became indistinguishable from the Dims.
My preference would be for there to be a FORMAL (and accepted) movement within the GOP for liberty and restrained government. THERE IS NOT. The leadership punishes those who don't toe the party line.
I was at a small group meeting that featured my local "conservative" Republican. He said that he thought that the Farm Bill (from a couple of years ago) was a terrible bill........but he voted for it, because it was going to pass anyway.
He wins every two years by margins of about 85%-15%. Generally no Dim opposition. Just a Lib.
The idealist in me hates the pragmatism in politics. One bit of unwelcome truth I picked up here was: "Politics is the art of the possible."
Of course, idealism stretches the bonds of the possible.
But one other reality — welcome or unwelcome — is that there are two viable parties in America. Every other body is, at best, a distraction; and, at worst, destructive.
Conservatism has some toehold in one of the parties, and none in the other.
So I work with the one.
Dan
Check out the Club for Growth.
Not all.
Does this group ever target Democrats, anywhere? I'd really like to know. Especially since one would think they would be most opposed to Democrats. I'm assuming they're conservative. Big assumption.
Badnarik, who describes himself as "almost everyone's second choice" for the Libertarian nomination
That's just sad.
"Libertarians are very strong on defense, and we would eagerly seek out the people who started the attack, but we are non-interventionist, which means as Americans we want to be left alone to live our lives as Americans. And Libertarians feel we should leave other countries alone..."
How are you going to "eagerly seek out the people who started the attack" when those people are harbored by nations you refuse to hold accountable? There is no country called Al Qaida. There is no country called Terrorista. There is a country called Afghanistan that harbored "the people who started the attack" and completely refused to cooperate. There is a country called Iraq that allowed "the people who started the attack" to build training camps there. A country called Iraq whose leader was a strong supporter of terrorism. There are hundreds of terrorist groups. Do you think they will all "leave us alone" if we just target one of them? You have to go to the source, the countries and leaders that support and harbor them.
Badnarik says any candidate who is on the ballot in all 50 states and has a mathematical chance of winning the election should be allowed to go up against Bush and Kerry.
Not a snowball's chance...but a mathematical chance.
Such a system would include lowering the requirements for coming to the U.S. Immigrants would have to give their name and address and possibly a photo, he said, "so we would know who is coming."
Well a picture, that's not too much to ask. This would include the Islamic terrorists of course. Oh but wait, if America "stops intervening", then suddenly Islam will forget their eternal mission of taking over and forcibly converting or killing everyone in the world.
The official Libertarian Party is pro-choice
Okay all you Freepers who say they're not. THEY ARE PRO-CHOICE. There is no confusion about where the LP stands on this issue.
Badnarik says he personally is pro-life
So is John Kerry, personally. Just to be sure, I called Badnarik's campaign headquarters to find out if he would fight for the rights of unborn children. In particular, would his Justice Department continue fighting for the Partial Birth Abortion ban. If not, pro-lifers who are truly concerned about the lives of millions of babies shouldn't even consider voting for a man who wouldn't even try to stop the slaughter in any way. His assistant campaign manager doesn't know if he will fight for the pro-life side if elected, but she'll "get back to me".
And this idiot is a Libertarian when he can't even get this right? The Presidential debates are created by an agreement between the parties involved (the organizers and the candidate that they invite). If the organizers of the debates don't want him there, then he has no "right" to be there. It's no more a 1st Amendment issue than if I were to complain that the NY Times infringes on my free speech rights because they won't let me use their printing press and distribution network without their permission.
No wonder the LP is in a decline -- their own candidate has no clue about the Constitution.
I sympathize with your being in that position and realizing those truths. When I emphasize here on FR that the Republicans have become supporters of Big Stupid Government growth once in power, I get the usual 'bot bashing. "Not voting for Republicans is voting for terrorists!" - crap like that.
Hang tough. And try to hold them accountable by making it clear that you will not support those who support continued government expansion. From the dogcatcher to Bush, hold them accountable.
That said...
NOBODY who voted for, or will re-elect ANYONE who was responsible for CFR has any business saying a word about others misunderstanding free speech.
LOL,,good one Dan. But ya can't have it both ways. Either they have such minimal numbers that they are irrelevant or they aren't.
And the idea that somehow Libertarian votes are Republican if not Libertarian is incorrect.
His statement about "personal freedom" struck me as somewhat bone-headed, as well.
It doesn't make any difference who the Libbies nominate, what they are for, or what they are against.
The Libertarian Party is to politics what Scientology is to established religion.....meaningless.
< glances at boilerplate response >
< glances at facts >
Hm... no change.
Dan
And don't forget ... pro-open borders: no screening, no official border, no visas, no waiting.
At some point, the Republicans really ought to return to listening to conservatives.
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.