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 ...
Stan Jones, the Losertarian running in Montana didn't even know which office he was running for.
He was on the ballot as a candidate for senator (to drastically reduce state government) but his campaign Web site said he was running for governor and he said that he would pardon anyone convicted under laws he considered unjust.
And a conservative third-party candidate running on a pro-trains platform cost Allen the election in VA.
Allen's terrible campaign didn't help matters.
I don't know how much these scumbags actually cost Republicans since I believe most of them came from the Democrat party in the first place. In any event, the rats will certainly be helping them, covertly and behind the scenes, if they believe the effort will deprive the GOP of some votes.
What a great liberal title... "Libertarians Emerge as a Force (Losertarians deep-six the GOP)"
Nothing like blaming the Libertarians for the Republicans not following principle enough.
If these "L" candidates weren't on ballots in every state, maybe Libertarians wouldn't vote at all, and so the only real affect they have is on the propositions, not the candidates. From comments I've read on F.R., that seems a real possibility.
Yep.
Let's all ignore the massive spending done by this administration. Let's ignore the immigration concerns.
It's the libertarians fault.
cookoocookoo
Losertarians cost Talent his seat in MO ..so is Rush a Libertarian? Claire McCaskill thought Rush helped her out nicely and thanked him for doing so. ;)
Just like some GOP types will help greens or independents in states where the Dems are popular.
The Libertarains lost big time as their sacrament(marijuana) went down to big defeats in two state referendums.
1. They're too insignificant to have an impact on anything
2. They're more closely aligned with the Democrats anyway (that's why they're called "liberaltarians")
3. They stole enough votes from GOP candidates to impact the election
See any flaws in that logic?
REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
posted by Jim Robinson
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/721810/posts
I am no fan of Libertarians, never have been. If they helped cause this, then they are the ones who will also have to live with the results.
Good news. Do you know which states Dane?
I think conservatives made our presence felt in the arena of ballot proposals. We certainly won a few here in Michigan.
You mean since Republicans didn't shrink government we should keep voting for them?
One thing though, I have noticed about libertarians I have known personally is that very few seem to want to talk about much beyond making "medicinal" marjiuana legal.
Libertarians handed the dhimmicrats and terrorists a victory. I hope they are really please with themselves.
For the record, I voted Republican, but it is rediculous to blame libertarians for Republican losses. That blame goes to nobody else but the Republicans themselves. Between the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, exploding deficits, runaway spending, the Federal Marriage Amendment, etc., how could they really expect that many libertarians to vote for them? The only reason I can think of (my reason for voting GOP) is that the Democrats would probably be worse. That's hardly enough to justify expecting big-time support from a part of your base you've completely neglected.
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path. ~Ronald Reagan
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.