I am pissed also but I am seeing a few anti-libertarian post today...They are this elections' Ross Perot.
Posted on 11/08/2006 2:27:12 PM PST by quidnunc
New York – Glum Republicans might turn their attention to the Libertarian Party to vent their anger. Libertarians are a generally Republican-leaning constituency, but over the last few years, their discontent has grown plain. It isn't just the war, which some libertarians supported, but the corruption and insider dealing, and particularly the massive expansion of spending. Mr Bush's much-vaunted prescription drug benefit for seniors, they fume, has opened up another gaping hole in America's fiscal situation, while the only issue that really seemed to energise congress was passing special laws to keep a brain-damaged woman on life support.
In two of the seats where control looks likely to switch, Missouri and Montana, the Libertarian party pulled more votes than the Democratic margin of victory. Considerably more, in Montana. If the Libertarian party hadn't been on the ballot, and the three percent of voters who pulled the "Libertarian" lever had broken only moderately Republican, Mr Burns would now be in office.
Does this mean that the libertarians are becoming a force in national elections, much as Ralph Nader managed to cost Al Gore a victory in 2000? Hope springs eternal among third-party afficionadoes, but the nature of the American electoral system, which directly elects representatives in a first-past-the-post system, makes it nearly impossible for third parties to gain traction. The last time it happened was in the 1850's, when the Whig party dissolved over internal disputes about slavery, opening the way for the emerging Republican party to put Abraham Lincoln in office. And acting as a spoiler is dubiously effective at achieving one's goals. In theory, it could pull the Repubicans towards the Libertarians, but in practice, it may just elect Democrats, pushing the nation's economic policy leftwards.
(Excerpt) Read more at economist.com ...
Curse you. I wanted to do that joke. Hrmph.
Better to know your enemies...nothing new in that.
I am pissed also but I am seeing a few anti-libertarian post today...They are this elections' Ross Perot.
Kill 'em all. Let God sort 'em out.
The fact is that most voters felt the country was going in the wrong direction and they wanted a change. And Iraq seems to be a quagmire and they didn't see the administration being realistic about it. Too bad the GOP was so interested in power they didn't see it. President Bush has had a very low approval rating for so long. The GOP didn't seem to care about scandalous behavior or pork barrell spending. Those should have been a big clues, too.
All of this whining about Libertarians is eerily reminiscent of lefty whining over Nader's spoiler effect in '00 and '04. It's almost as pointless, too.
Protest voters and Democrats...it's gotten to where you can't tell the two a part.
well said!
Where do you see that? Looking at the numbers posted, it seems that Burns simply didn't get as many as that Tester guy.
You'd be surprised what you can do if you really want to.
LOL! Like actually get a candidate elected?
Believe it or not, crunchy Colorado defeated a marijuana legalization referendum by 60%-40%. It was to legalize possession of 1 oz. or less by people 21 and over, not a medical marijuana amendment. Of course, those referenda are only symbolic, since marijuana is illegal under federal law.
You know, I'm glad the election turned out the way it did.
If not, you wouldn't have shown me how much libertarians are hated by the GOP.
I will be sure to not vote for the GOP candidate any more. If there is a republican that is actually conservative with gov growth, I might. But not just someone with an R by their name.
Here take this test, you might be surprised.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Maybe. Of course, you don't have to if you don't want to. If what you really want is just something to comlain about, then you piss off as many people as you can who might have voted for him.
When you start seeing everyone who doesn't completely agree with you as a Democrat, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Now they will get a tax increase! LOL
Libertarians are similar in some ways to RINOs. I like some of the issues or attitudes Libertarians have. But I'd never be able to get past the fact that on social issues they're as bad as the worst of the Dems.
In fact, I looked for the Right-to-Life line yesterday. I forgot that it isn't there any more. They didn't get enough votes 4 years ago to remain on the ballot automatically, and I guess they didn't get their petitions in for a slate this time. (Hey, for all I know, the party doesn't exist in this state any more.)
As for a rise of a third party, I think that's a good thing. Whether they took votes away or got more people to vote, who can say. Voter turnout was up, so maybe they had something to do with that.
The truth is, dedicated libertarians are not a reliable part of the conservative or republican constituency. They can't be counted on, so they can't be counted as part of the constituency.
They didn't cost us anything, just like the same few thousand libertarians weren't with us when we won elections past.
Frankly, Republicans and conservatives shouldn't flirt with these guys. Like the chubby older woman sitting alone at the bar at 2:45 am, long past everyone else has paired off, she looks attractive after more than a few drinks and more than a few strikeouts, but it's nobody you really want in your bed or have to humor in the short, medium, or long term.
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.