Libertarian candidate collects votes...

V.A. Pilot | 10/12/01 | Louis Hansen

[gargoyle]

...upppp. sorry. Maybe I should have classified it as BREAKING FOOOOKING NEWS?

...It obviously wasn't directed to you, but, feel free to express your opinion, even though it contains no logical or reasonable argument...

[A2J]

"Which is it? Are we irrelevant, or a threat?"

You're a nuisance at best.

[r9etb]

In governor's race, Redpath lacks bucks, not determination.

Um, I think there's probably a good reason you haven't told us how how many votes he's collected. I sincerely doubt he'll break 1%.

[Liberal Classic]

Wildcat, ever figure maybe the reason you don't elicit a good response is maybe you are being insulting in the same breath as your question?

[Storm Orphan]

Then by all means I'd cease making us the object of your crusade. This seems to be
the only topic you post on with any zeal.

Yet you seem to define yourself not by what you believe, but by opposition to libertarians.

Rather sad, really.

[zoyd]

I wish you were right, that the LP was getting more members, and becoming a political force, but you're far more optimistic than me.

I've been an LP member for 14+ years, and our philosophy just plainly isn't admired by most people.

Most people (Republicans included) are scared to death of a limited government. The very idea of legalized drugs gives hives to the majority of our country.

I don't blame Libertarians for this -- I blame the populace.

Americans don't care about freedom anywhere near as much as they care about safety. Americans, now like every other citizen on every other country on Earth, WANT bigger government. They WANT Daddy Dubya to tell them what to do and where to go. They LIKE the idea of 1984.

When Libertarians make the refrain that 'there's not a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats', it's a reference to what both parties do to the size and scope of government. While Dems want to spend money for federally-funded abortions, Republicans want money for federally-funded 'abstinence teaching' and encourage the idea of federal monies going to private religious charities.

The argument is very seldom made that government is JUST TOO BIG. Republicans and Democrats know that voicing said opinion will get them voted out of office.

[Liberal Classic]

You're a nuisance at best.

I we are so irrelevant, why bother with insults. Does it feel good to make fun of someone you don't like?

[A2J]

"I fully aware I may be in the minorty on certain points, and I work to raise issues. Why the suggested we are all dysfunctionally stubborn? Leave your insults at the door, please."

Of all of the libertarians that I've encountered, LC, you are the only one that I would listen to. This is because you are a libertarian who is not afraid to criticize your party when they are wrong and appear to be more open-minded than most others.

When I make statements regarding most of the libertarians on FR, I do so believing that they do not apply to reasonable people as yourself, but only to those whose selfishness has severely tainted their "principles."

I intended no offense to you.

[r9etb]

...No. Libertarianism is not a doctrinaire philosophy. Unlike the left and the right, individual issues are debated on AN INDIVIDUALS PHILOSOPHY, not dictatorial or dogmatic bulldog shtt.

LOL! That very statement is "doctrinaire," and a cursory look at any libertarian thread will demonstrate that there's enough libertarian dogma to water a forest of fire hydrants.

[RayeHawk]

Actually . . . according to post election analysis, the Libertarian candidate did best in heavily Dem districts. This would tend to suggest that the Libertarian candidate drew more Dems than Reps. Which shoots the "spoiler" image out of the water.

And really, there is no reason to think that a Libertarian candidate draws from Rep voters but not from Dem voters. Libertarians are, after all, not only fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.

[Xenon481]

If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for ... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. By this rule you will rarely go wrong.

If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires.

- Robert A. Heinlein, through Lazarus Long in Time Enough for Love (also The Notebooks of Lazarus Long)

[Koblenz]

Wasting your time seeking purity will accomplish nothing. If you desire to live in the real world instead of your fantasyland you will join the Republican Party and move them in your direction. Third parties never accomplish anything.

And in the primary, feel free to vote for the most libertarian member, but do it in the primary! IF the Republican party is a machine party in the area and doesn't allow primaries, then you can vote LP in the general. But otherwise, you should work from within the party, not from without.

[alpowolf]

I sincerely doubt he'll break 1%

That could very well be true. We are certainly in the minority, I can't deny that.

But...that also means that if the GOP candidate loses, I don't want to hear any of this damn whining that "it's the Libertarians' fault". If Earley loses it's HIS fault. Period.

[AUgrad]

I agree. You clarified my point nicely, Thank you. Notice in my post I said "libertarian" (lower case l). Maybe the movement won't come from the Libertarians (upper case).I personally think their rigidity on some subjects turns people off. Of course that begs the question " where then?" I wish I knew. I think it is a question of how can the resources of enough people be combined to break the hold that special interests, big money and power have on our government? Maybe the Libertarians, maybe not.I don't know I believe there are enough people who feel the same way as many Libertarians to affect real change. It is simpy a matter of getting them all to pull in the same direction

[Xenon481]

Political tags -- such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth -- are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.

- Robert A. Heinlein, through Lazarus Long in Time Enough for Love (also The Notebooks of Lazarus Long)

[That Poppins Woman]

The GOP was a major party instantaneously.

Just like Bugs and the bottle of "martians", someone just added a little water, and voila! Instantaneous buttheads with a penchant for the nanny state .... now, how is that different than the democrats? Oh, right, its not. You only like to pretend it is.

VOTE REAMS - REEFERENDUM PARTY - FOR LT. GOV IN VIRGINIA!

[That Poppins Woman]

BTTT

[A2J]

"VOTE REAMS - REEFERENDUM PARTY - FOR LT. GOV IN VIRGINIA!"

AND GET REAMED A NEW ONE!

[A2J]

"This would tend to suggest that the Libertarian candidate drew more Dems than Reps. Which shoots the "spoiler" image out of the water."

And, much to their chagrin, builds the case that the libertarians are far more closely aligned with their kissin' cousins, the Democrats.

[Twodees]

Wrong, the GOP gained power during a war by presidential edicts forcing all states to allow soldiers from anywhere to vote. They cemented the power after the war by further electoral fraud, until reconstruction was ended, after which they were the minority party until Reagan ran for president.

The GOP is not conservative and never has been. They are utopian and mercantilist at best, and were responsible for all the socialist legislation passed before the 1920's.