Posted on 04/06/2008 10:57:13 AM PDT by FocusNexus
See my new tagline
I trust you to help the RATs with that approach. And that is all.
When I think Libertarian I think Jessie Ventura.
Jesse Ventura was on the Phil Hendrie show and Phil demolished him. Some of the best confrontational radio I ever heard
Phil had Jesse’s number!
If GW Bush is a conservative, then certainly not.
Got to give the guy credit for being honest. Not many politicians will tell the truth, hardly any actually. This guy is actually stating a fact and letting conservatives know that their platforms do not match conservative platforms in a lot of areas.
I don't care what the name of the candidate's party is, nor what the name of a national party is...
if they espouse the ideals of a limited federal government, they're getting my vote.
(And if they take the philosophy to illogical extremes, like some of the national-level Libertarian's anti-military positions, etc, then they lose that vote.)
This forum is over run with them, pretending to be Conservative. Ayn Rand is quoted here more often than Jesus.
For the Libertarians to succeed, they need something like the Contract With America, stating 10 simple platform ideas with the most popularity among the American people.
Since many of their ideas *aren’t* popular, it doesn’t mean that they change their minds about them or act in a hypocritical manner about them. Just that they agree to “back burner those ideas for the time being” and concentrate on what the public really wants.
It’s called compromise, not capitulation.
In real terms, the Libertarians could set realistic election goals for themselves with what they advocate. For their first major election with the new idea, they should set a minimum percent of the American voting population for an issue. As examples:
1) Advocate the individual right to bear arms, as well as many of the campaign ideas of the NRA. At 67% popularity (for example) this is their #1 of 10 platform items on their Contract With America. It is a winning issue.
2) A 5% reduction in the size of the US federal government. With 62% public approval (again, just guessing), this is a great, easy to understand and popular platform item.
3) A 10% reduction in the amount of federal regulation of private business. A 57% public approval.
4) A 20% reduction in the federal income tax. 55% approval.
etc. But importantly, every single entry in their platform has at least, say 55% popularity with the American public. In most cases, this means that it appeals to conservatives and some liberals; or to liberals and some conservatives.
As such, the Libertarians would become the de facto centrist party. And it agrees that for a least a few elections, to *only* work on issues that are very popular with the American people, that the Democrats and Republicans refuse to address.
Only when they have built up their numbers, and become a major player in US politics, do they introduce some of their other platforms, starting with the most publicly popular. This would put them in the “cat bird’s seat”, to wheel and deal with the Democrats and Republicans to get what they want that is less popular than 50% or so.
Bingo! Larry Craig should have done the honorable thing and resigned, allowing a Republican to run for his seat as an incumbent. If the Republican Leadership in the Senate were conservative that would have happened.
Santana and Maine and pray for rain. How’s your old pitchers
on the DL doing?
The Archbishop of Canterbury said a few weeks ago that not believing in the Virgin Birth of Jesus, should not be an impediment to becoming a Christian, where do you suppose that leads the Church? After all it is only a small matter, hmnn, maybe only one percent different?
isn’t Clint Eastwood a libertarian too?
Correct, and I suspect all Phillies is about in this article is the justification of abortion. Not all members of the Libertarian party support abortion because many take the the term “right to life, liberty, and property” fully and literally.
“Fifty years ago, conservatives claimed states had a right to keep persons of color from voting.”
Actually, 50 years ago we didn’t call those people “Conservatives.”
We called them “Democrats.”
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.