Obviously the best thing to do here is to shift blame to the libertarians for Republi(cough RINO)can caused losses. Isn't that what the liberals do, it is never their own fault. It is always someone else's. Never take responsibility.
This whole libertarian thing today is a reason why changes need to be made to voting laws. My vote terminates on the winner or the loser. There is a perverse incentive built into the system not to vote for the candidate I prefer and an incentive to vote for the lesser of two evils both of whom I'd rather not vote for at all.
Votes should cascade down a ranking of candidates. For example, say there are constitution party, libertarian party, democrat, republican, socialist---candidates, whose names coincidentally are initialed, C, L, D, R, S, respectively. I want to determine the ranking of the successful candidate who gets my vote. So I rank accordingly. C, L, R. Democrat, socialist, candidates will not get my vote under any condition. If Democrat wins he wins with someone else's vote. If the C, L, R, candidate wins, it is because one of them got my vote. I rank C #1, L #2, R #3.
The votes for C get counted and he loses, my vote doesn't die, it gets inherited by #2: L. He wins and it stops there or he loses and #3: R inherits my vote.
This system would provide incentive to vote for the person you want as #1 without worry that you are throwing your vote away or are taking votes away from the lesser of two evils the only two viable candidates. This system would grant viability to 3rd party candidates who deserve to have some without robbing viability from the two who seem to monopolize it. It would equalize their chances in the fairest possible way. We should be able to implement this system without undermining the electoral college system. Of course when I refer to voting for C, L, or R, I am talking about the delegates.
Jason_b: I like your idea.
All:
I think the biggest problem that the Republicans have is "Compassionate Conservatism."
All that means is "lets listen to the people and be compassionate (give money to) the people who are crying the loudest (seniors, illegals, bridges to nowhere).
What the country needs is a hard nosed conservative. Until you have the guts to tell people what they don't want to hear (this is our country, come here by our laws - the gov. can not support everyone - you must be responsible for yourself), you can not be conservative.
You can not fix the problems in this country by trying to be everyones best friend with compassion.
For everyone bashing us small l libertarians, grow up will you. When we elected the GOP majority in 1994, we were promised a contract with America. It was supposed to be conservative. What the hell happened to that??? If you GOP people had had any guts to cut spending, instead of trying to be everyones friend, you would have a 15 seat majority in the Senate right now.
oooh, we got a tax cut. What about a spending cut? I thought the GOP knew that the gov has no money, only what it can take at gunpoint from you and me. So I get to keep $2000 extra this year. Why can't I keep $2500? Because you decided my money was better spent on bridges, illegals, abortions, drugs, etc. If I could keep my money, I would be taking care of my grandmother instead of social security and Medicare.
These "social values" comments are getting old too.
Why do we need laws to tell me what I can and can not do in my own house? I'm not hurting anyone. Is it just so you can feel morally superior (until you get caught with a page)? Why can't I buy a beer on Sunday? Is the world going to end?
I think I finally realized why the Democrats and Republicans look so similar.
Democrats: You need gov. because you can't possibly figure out how to handle your finances and your retirement.
Republicans: You need gov. because you can't be trusted in your home to make the "right" choices.
I don't want to "need" gov. for anything, except protecting our borders, defending this great country.
/rant