Posted on 12/10/2006 10:04:01 PM PST by neverdem
To the contrary, ask a libertarian if they want more laws proscribing what were lawful activities, e.g. tobacco smoking, etc.?
They've already turned against their libertarian base and spoiled the social conservatives rotten. Didn't work out so well for them.
Aaaa, you missed my point. I am certainly not saying that libertarians (large or small L) want more government involvement in personal choices.
What I'm saying is that the phrase "socially liberal" doesn't mean less government involvement in personal choices, but more government involvement in personal choices, just not the ones associated with the right.
For instance, a social liberal has no trouble supporting tobacco restrictions or trans-fat bans, but might support 'gay rights.' A libertarian would oppose tobacco/food nanny-statism and would realize that 'gay rights' are about being more equal, in the Orwellian sense.
The old classical meaning of liberalism is, unfortunately, quite dead, and only comes out of its grave to attempt to trick people into voting for Dem statists.
"President Bush and the congressional Republicans left no libertarian button unpushed in the past six years: "
The article failed to mention that Bush seems to be in total agreement with libertarians when it comes to illegal immigration.
"They've already turned against their libertarian base and spoiled the social conservatives rotten. Didn't work out so well for them."
Bush seemed to agree with libertarians completely on the illegal immigration issue.
You mean with the Libertarian party, not with libertarians.
Regardless, he didn't even agree with the Libertarian party on the immigration issue as they are for open borders ONLY if the social welfare benefits in this country are eliminated.
The bottom line is that the GOP has spoiled the social conservatives rotten over the last 26 years and the substantial libertarian minded voters have gotten nothing but a temporary tax cut.
Pretty much every move the GOP has made over the last 26 years has been to placate social conservatives or big business lobyists (e.g. immigration).
When over the last 26 years has the GOP tried to reduce either the size of government or the control they have over our lives?
I can remember only one short period shortly after the 1994 elections when the House tried their hardest to shrink the government but the Senate republicans, besides Phil Graham, would have none of it.
What I'm saying is that the phrase "socially liberal" doesn't mean less government involvement in personal choices, but more government involvement in personal choices, just not the ones associated with the right.
For instance, a social liberal has no trouble supporting tobacco restrictions or trans-fat bans, but might support 'gay rights.' A libertarian would oppose tobacco/food nanny-statism and would realize that 'gay rights' are about being more equal, in the Orwellian sense.
Maybe you misunderstood what I tried to write, but that is what I was trying to say. This approximately one seventh of the electorate that is described as small 'l' libertarians abhors statism, whether from the right or left.
That's another reason why Giuliani won't fly in 2008 in the general election, if he can squeak through the primaries, IMHO. Meanwhile we're stuck in a long war with a resurgent Islam that most of the country seems inclined to deny, and the GOP big tent looks pretty fragile.
Smackdown! By Independents & Moderates
"Why? Because exit polls show there's a large chunk of the electorate that is moderate, independent-minded and turned off by partisanship. In exit polls, 47 percent of voters described their views as moderate, 21 percent liberal and 32 percent conservative. And 61 percent of the moderates voted Democratic this year.
"On party identification, 26 percent said they're Independent, which is in line with recent elections. But this year, Independents went Democratic by a 57-39 margin. That's what gave the day to Democrats. In the 2002 midterm, by contrast, Independents went Republican in a 48-45 split."
There ya go; I agree. I was focussing on the inaccurate use of the phrase 'social liberal' by the writer of the article and the subsequent pseudo-surprise expressed by the author that said libertarians have not run from big-government Republicans to vote for bigger-government Democrats.
I'm not sure what people will do with Giuliani, though. I suppose it depends on how insanely the Dems handle themselves in the next two years and what happens with respect to terrorism -- and who the Dems nominate.
Thanks, and your realistic view of things is much appreciated.
I mean Big Brother is watching all of us. Not you in particular. You know, Libertarian ping, Big Brother from Orwells' 1984? Sorry if you didn't get it.
Nice pic by the way. Do you mind if I use it?
COLD HEAT RESPONDED: "I really hate to point out the obvious, but did you ever consider that it might be "You" who is misreading the tea leaves????...Eh?"
Could be.
But with a bachelor's degree in Radio/TV/Film, another in Advertising/Public Relations, an MBA in Marketing, about 45 YEARS of experience talking with people about political issues and my own personal experience of feeling literally shafted by my vote having been taken for granted by those who secured execution of my vote by deception, I don't think so.
I understand the "tea leaves" VERY well indeed!
I can't believe that any genuine libertarians would vote for John Kerry, so I'm suuming libertarians are actually around 10% of the population, not 15%.
BUMP
Libertarians wish people like you'd restrict yourself to fetching sticks and spare this forum too.
Sure you can use the pic.
What else have they got?
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.