[Moby Grape]

Bloomberg is not representative of the GOP as a whole...and Farrah's Libertarian rants, the I-will-prove-how-principled-I-am-by-not-voting-for-republicans-and-therefore-assure-democrats-get-elected, flies in the face of all he claims to stand for....the old LP cult-speak of "they are all the same" (except for the pure 100% patriot LP, of course) is NOT getting the job done. It is true that both parties are far from true to the Constitution. It is also true that the democrats are far more dangerous than the GOP...the reality is that if you are NOT in power, and the LP doesn't have a prayer of controlling either house of Congress, then you have to work within the existing parties to bring about the changes needed (and I agree with the changes needed that Farrah speaks of). The "princilpled" LP may assure the final destruction of the Constitution by acting out their version of principle by assuring the socialist democrats finish the job (voting for marginal third party that take votes from those who DO have a chance of winning, or by not voting is not principled.)

[Just another Joe]

I agree with your thoughts.
My only caveat to this is that given that the only choices are between a demoncrat that CALLS himself a demoncrat and a demoncrat that CALLS himself a Republican I would have to think long and hard before voting for either one.
He couldn't get elected as a demoncrat so he calls himself a Republican. I'll bet Rudy is kicking himself for ever supporting this fool.

[DM1]

I have always thought that the Libertarians would be better off joining and attempting to influence the GOP than by running on their own. One of the congressman from Texas (the name currently escapes me) is one example of a reformed Libertarian turned GOPer. It would be muc more beneficial to the US if these guys matured and attempted influence from within.

[inquest]

You don't have to be libertarian to see that neither party has much to offer. And it doesn't really matter a whole lot if voting for a third party causes Democrats to get elected, because the liberal mindset is already in control regardless. When's the last time you heard Bush take a stand against liberalist attitudes about how society should be run? I think the last time I heard anything like that was during the election campaign, where Bush was giving us these vague platitudes like "I trust the people. Mr. Gore trusts government," over such monumental differences in policy as when Gore proposed full prescription drug coverage within three years, and Bush said it should be done in five. This is not a winning strategy, folks.

At least with Democrats in charge, no one's getting fooled. It would be a small (and temporary) price to pay for an opportunity for a genuine conservative movement within this country.

[Sloth]

and the LP doesn't have a prayer of controlling either house of Congress, then you have to work within the existing parties to bring about the changes needed

I keep hearing this circular, illogical argument. Insisting that nobody should vote for X because nobody else votes for X is ridiculous. I suppose if the Dems and the Communists were the two major parties, you'd be telling us to vote for Ted Kennedy and Diane Feinstein.

[Badray]

"The "princilpled" LP may assure the final destruction of the Constitution by acting out their version of principle by assuring the socialist democrats finish the job (voting for marginal third party that take votes from those who DO have a chance of winning, or by not voting is not principled.)"

Let me see if I can understand this:

To save the Constitution and our priciples, we must compromise our principles and vote for those less evil (but still evil) who would derail the Constitution at a slower pace than the more evil opponent. How many election cycles will it take before there is no Constitution or principle left to compromise?