Republican Liberty Caucus as a virtual third party

October 1, 2005 | Albert Abramson

[Clemenza]

They'd be better off getting Jon Spencer to run as a Conservative/Libertarian fusion candidate. It appears as though the simians who run the NY GOP have made it definite that Attorney General Facelift is the sacrificial lamb against Hillary.

Does ANYONE really like Jeannie Pirro? She's the Lebanese-American Harriet Miers.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

She's Lebanese?

[Clemenza]

Yes. Pirro is her husband's name. Having a vowel at the end of your name helps in Yonkers, Eastchester, and certain other parts of Westchester.

[LibertarianInExile]

BWA HA HA HA HA!

Where did you hear this? I would subscribe to the latter assessment, but I don't know what they are trying. Maybe to become the national equivalent of the blue man group.

And THIS kind of stuff is why I only vote big "L" libertarian as an occasional protest vote. Sorry, freepatriot32.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Something tells me that if Peter King didn't chair the Homeland Security Committee he would be in this race.

I just can't envision a scenario under which he would not improve upon-or at worst, match-the performance of Rick Lazio.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

LOL.

Yes, I remember the hijinx of the Blue-or more accurately, purple-Man fondly.

Wasn't he running in Idaho?

[springing interest]

Libertarians will not stay unless they see their agenda getting somewhere.

[LibertarianInExile]

We should have left by now, then. Most of us have not, simply because we don't see any viable options.

[springing interest]

I sometimes vote libertarian. Guess that's my small way of sending a message.

[PhilCollins]

I do the same thing. If I think that an election won't be close, I vote for the Republican, since I don't want to help split the conservaitve vote, helping the Democrat win with less than the majority. If I think that the Republican candidate is too liberal and that the election won't be close, I vote for the Constitution Party candidate, and, if that party doesn't have a candidate, in that race, I vote for the Libertarian. In Oct. 2004, I thought that Bush was too liberal and that Kerry would win 57% of the vote in my state, Illinois. I voted for the Constitution Party candidate, and Kerry won 57% in IL.
I wish that more conservatives would vote the way that we do. It might cause Republicans to become more conservative.

[john330]

When I first looked into the RLC it was because I was a life long Republican who developed a libertarian view. I remember at one time the RLC saying it was made up of libertarians who saw the Republican party as the best tool for spreading their philosophy, and for seeing it enacted. I agree with this.

The third party route is a sure fire route to political obscurity. Within the GOP is the best route for these principles to be spread. The important thing is the spread of the principles, but the need for majorities to accomplish an agenda makes alliances with a major party necessary.

A third party would ensure the win of our opponents and the shelving of our agenda. If you are willing to shelve the agenda to claim the moral high-ground then go ahead, but don't be surprised when you get nothing done.

[john330]

The blue man was running in Montana.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Thanks for the clarification!

I appreciate it.

:)

Maybe he would have had better luck if he had run for Ed Koch's old position as District Leader of the Village.

;0)

[A CA Guy]

I think if you want change, you try to make it in the Republican primaries, then after the result of the primary, it's time to vote Republican and not to split up the conservative vote.

[A CA Guy]

I think it is best to make any attempts at change in the primaries as a third party.
After that, everyone is a weasel if they don't vote Republican, because not doing so enables Democrats power.

On the city level, if a RLC or Libertarian wants to run for Dog Catcher and not go for a Republican, that is cool IMO.

[PhilCollins]

Sometimes, if the election won't be close, a conservative can vote for a minor party candidate without helping the Democrat.

In 2000, I lived near San Diego, and I thought that the republican nominee for the U.S. Senate, Congressman Tom Campbell, was too liberal. I knew, because of a few polls, that Sen. Feinstein would beat Campbell by 15%-20%. If I thought that the election would be close, I would have voted for Campbell, since I didn't want to help split the anti-liberal vote, helping Feinstein win with less than half of the vote. Since I knew that Feinstein would get at least 55%, I voted for Diane Templin, of the American Independent Party. Feinstein beat Campbell, about 56%-38%. The thrid and fourth place candidates were the Green and Libertarian candidates. Templin was fifth, with 2%.

[Manwich]

Sir, I am shocked! If one doesn't vote Republican in a General Election, one is a weasel? I've looked at the Liberty Score of my Senators and Rep and it wasn't good. I'll vote my conscience against my Authoritarian Republicans and be a weasel.

[spikeytx86]

I think that the RLC is good in that it is one of the last outposts of fiscal sanity in our party. My main problem with the RLC is that it is a tool for libertarians to run as a mainstream candidate to win elections. They are by the very definition of the word RINO's. They hold no real loyalty to the party or its principals and do not really try to improve the party but to mainly use it as a election tool.

However, I also don't think the republican party should purge those who do not meat the purity test. I think the republican party must fight to remain a purely conservative party, but there are many degrees of conservatism and not just moral conservatives (who if you take there votes for the FMA away,look no different then democrats!).

Basically I don't have a problem with RLC I have a problem with libertarians exploiting the party for political gain.

[A CA Guy]

Yes, voting a third party in a general election gets you Democrats. That was EXACTLY what got us Bill Clinton.

Third parties are directly responsible for the success of Bill Clinton.

So third parties can make believe they are conservative and talk tough, but when their actions get democrats elected, they are no conservative's friend.

The time for a statement is in the primaries. If you want to elect a different Republican, then get a different Republican a victory in the Primaries. Then vote Republican in the general election, unless it is a dog catcher position, in that case Libertarian is a safe bet.

[Manwich]

Its my understanding that the Libertarian Party claims that they draw equally from both parties (this has never made sense to me, but who am I to call them liars?) and draw voters who would not otherwise vote (this does make sense).

The Federal Government grew less in Clinton's 8 years than Bush's term so far, and that is barring wars and disasters.

I doubt that Libertarians consider themselves "conservative" at least on the World's Smallest Political Quiz. I certainly don't.

I usually vote Republican, if a Libertarian option doesn't exist, but sometimes I vote Democrat if the Republican is particularly offensive. I just want a smaller government and I don't care how I get it. Am I weaselly for this desire?