A Decent Pick: Libertarians could do worse than Sarah Palin

Reason ^ | September 10, 2008 | Radley Balko, Senior Editor

[rdb3]

They’re not going to like her neoconish foreign policy...

Continue to beat that dead horse, will ya?

[JSDude1]

Agree with a lot of it (especially) if she stay true to her conservative individual self (not big-government Republican-AKA the “insiders” which is Party leadership). Don’t agree with his opposition to “social conservtism”. Libertarian and Social Conservative aren’t mutually exclusive (especially for those who understand the US Constitution and know the court prescedent).

[mick]

Love her even more !!

[Onelifetogive]

Libertarians could do worse than Sarah Palin

I'm pretty sure they already have...

[TXnMA]

No doubt this libertine wants Palin to come out in favor of legalizing drugs...

[fortheDeclaration]

My problem with the Libertarian Party (well, one of my problems), has always been their arrogance in going for the Presidency without first establishing any type of record in terms of running a city or state. Show me what you can do on a lower governmental level and maybe I’ll take a look at you for higher office. But I’m not going to hand the nuclear arsenal to a party that’s never run even a city.

Yes, they need to build a Party that wins contested elections and actually governs.

[fortheDeclaration]

I consider myself a libertarian, and I think the Libertarian Party is completely wrong in its opposition to the Iraq war. There's nothing about being a libertarian that says the government should not defend the citizenry from our hostile enemies, and I think the War in Iraq was a legitimate expression of that just power of government. Also, I think the Libertarian Party is out to lunch on its open borders position, since 1) it is well within the scope of legitimate government power to protect the nation's borders; and 2) there is no such thing as a human right to live in the United States.

Amen.

The Libertarian Party is out of touch with reality.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

THIS libertarian is a proud barracuda-head!

[Free Descendant]

“Who cares what loosertarians think?”

You can be critical of the article without insulting enthusiastic McCain/Palin supporters who are libertarians like myself. The great speeches by Republicans that drive the crowds wild are libertarian to the core.

[Free Descendant]

I agree with you. I don’t think much of the LP. Boortz is a pretty good representative (his occasional un-friendly Christian comments aside) of my libertarian views.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

There seems to be a (hugh) disconnect right now between libertarians, and Libertarians.

Libertarians, got hopelessly stuck, somewhere along the way.

They don’t get it. They don’t get national defense. They don’t get national interests. They’re too focused on dope, frankly they’re too much like liberals.

libertarians admire Republicans like Palin.

libertarians can’t imagine anything on earth more inspiring, than a woman who believes in rugged individualism,

who shoots. :)

She’s perfect. Ronald Reagan. But better!!

[Free Descendant]

I agree completely. I’ve been disenchanted with the LP for years, but I am a firm believer in libertarianism and I think the GOP is the best hope we have for it. I have never been so excited about a political candidate in my life as I am about Sarah Palin. I’m registered independant now but I decided to register Republican after hearing Palin’s convention speech.

When I hear broad philisophical speeches by Republicans I think, that’s me. If they lived up to it we’d be in great shape! :)

There is one thing that doesn’t sit well with me about a lot of Republicans and that is the tendancy for Republican cheerleading. I’m an American and a conservative before a member of any political party. In fact the party couldn’t mean less to me except as a means to (strive for) an end: liberty.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

OK, disgruntled former Hillary supporters have their movement: PUMAS.

I say, there are more of us, than anyone can imagine.

(probably more right here on FR, than a lot of regulars suspect)

We need a name. :)

[Free Descendant]

Heh, that sounds good to me! We definately should have a name! :)

[Cringing Negativism Network]

What in the world to call a political movement, which believes in freedom, America and standing up resolutely at every turn, for America’s interests?

“Free trade” conservatives couldn’t care less about American interests — they focus to a fault on the freedom part, to the detriment of country.

The LP likewise, really doesn’t get the fact we live in a dangerous world, and need to protect our interests.

George Bush represents an aspect of conservatism which understands the importance of defense — but with all due respect he’s out to lunch and then some, on the border.

Pat Buchanan drove a Mercedes for crying out loud, before someone called him on it.

There really doesn’t seem to be anyone (other than Palin) who gets it.

It’s a challenge. No question.

[mick]

NEW FEDERALIST ?

I can’t take credit because I heard someone use it. But after all, as a political system, federalism is what embodies the principle of Local Control, Private Property, and Constitutional Rights based on Natural Law.

That’s my two cents.

[mick]

One more thing.......The OLD FEDERALIST were the ones who supported the Constitution in the first place. Hard core libertarians like Patrick Henry opposed it. Then they went off the deep end with Adams and the various extreme measures like the Alien/Sedition Acts that led to the formation of the Democrat/Republicans of Jefferson.
Somethings brewing out there with Sarah. Who better represents local control, individual rights and national patriotism then Palin today ? Which is why I think she is getting traction.