I don't think these half sized bills would fool anybody.
Well, maybe you. LOL!
Posted on 11/14/2006 6:25:58 PM PST by Purple GOPer
In one closely watched Congressional race (Sodrel v Hill, IN-9) and two critical Senate races (Missouri and Montana), the Republican candidate was defeated by fewer votes than the Libertarian candidate received.
[Note: the last data I could find on the Missouri race still had two of the 3746 precincts to report, so it is possible that statement isn't true for Missouri, but if it is not true it is still very close and does not diminish my point.]
In other words, in these two critical Senate races and if the Republican had gotten the Libertarian's votes, the Republican would have won.
For the rest of this article, please recognize that I am speaking of the small-"l" libertarian, and not the Libertarian Party of the candidates mentioned above. A "libertarian", in the shortest definition I can muster, is someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. In other words, it is someone who wants the government to perform a very small set of legitimate functions and otherwise leave us alone.
I can hardly contain my glee at seeing this happen after years of hoping it would. And in such dramatic fashion, with such important results. I did not hope it would because I wanted Republicans to lose, but because the Republicans had become corrupted (by which I do not mean corrupt in the typical sense.) They became enamored of power, and believed that they could get away with expanding the size, intrusiveness, and cost of government as long as they had government aim for "conservative" goals rather than liberal ones. This loss, and the way it happened, was the best thing that could have happened for Americans who care about a government focused on limited government and liberty.
No, the Democrats are not that government. They believe in anything but limited government, and they only believe in liberty in one's personal life, but not in one's economic life. In a sense, Democrats believe that the citizens work for the government.
Republicans on the other hand have acted in just the opposite way: they believe in economic liberty and they know we do not work for government. But they do not believe in personal liberty. The failure of the strategery of the Republicans, to focus on "the base" by trotting out social issues such as the South Dakota no-exception abortion ban (which lost, I'm pleased to say) demonstrated two things: First, social issues do not have long coat-tails. Second, the GOP base is fiscal conservatives more than it is social conservatives.
Fiscal conservatives, even more than social conservatives, were the demotivated voting block. Fiscal conservatives who are not socially conservative, i.e. voters who are libertarian even if they don't know it or wouldn't identify themselves that way, were the key swing vote in this election and were the reason that the GOP lost Congress...the Senate in particular.
In a recent study called "The Libertarian Vote", David Boaz (Cato Institute) and David Kirby (America's Future Foundation) discuss the growing number of American libertarians, the growing dissatisfaction among them (including me) with the GOP, and the continuing shift in voting patterns caused by that dissatisfaction. Tuesday held the obvious conclusion of this shift.
The party which went from reforming welfare to banning internet gambling by sticking the ban inside a port security bill, the party which went from Social Security reform to trying to amend the Federal Constitution to prevent gay marriage, the party which went from controlling the size and scope of government to banning horse meat became a party which libertarians and Republicans alike could not stomach.
The Democrats are a disaster, though they probably realize they need to move to the center. The Republicans have just been taught a brutal lesson that they also need to move to the center (on social issues) and back to fundamental principles of our Founders on issues of economics and basic liberties. No party can rely on the unappealing nature of their opponent to be a strong enough motivation to win elections, nor should we let them win if being just a bit better than the other guys is all they aspire to.
What I love about libertarian voters is that they vote on principle, not on party. The GOP might not like it, but politics should not be about blind loyalty if your party has lost its way. So, I disagree with suggestions that libertarians are fickle and unreliable voters. Instead the Republicans became an unreliable party. The Democrats on the other hand are extremely reliable -- they will always raise spending and taxes, get government involved where it doesn't belong. But other than the tax cuts of several years ago, the Republicans have been no different other than choosing different areas of our lives to intrude upon.
I hope that the result of the Libertarian Effect, particularly on the GOP, will be that the next election may provide us an opportunity to replace this batch of Democrat placeholders with Congressmen who not only have read the Constitution, but respect it. Congressmen who understand that Republican voters do not elect politicians to have them impose their (or our) morality on the people, but rather to keep government from interfering in our lives and leaving us, in the immortal words of Milton Friedman, "Free to Choose".
"The sheets of bills were xeroxes of bills which are used to track serial numbers."
BS Hezbollah is well known for it's counterfeiting activities. Begs the question, what is your motive to post such a lie?
"It disgusts me to my soul that an uninformed buffoon's vote counts as much as mine."
Meantime, I am frightened to the core to learn that there are freepers (obviously skilled in the art of deception and propaganda) who willfully and boldly attempt to deny the counterfeiting activities of hezbollah terrorists.
I think the Dubai Port deal and the open borders hurt us a lot, though. W was riding high, and everyone was giving him the benefit of the doubt on the WOT until he started the open borders thing. Now, I don't think most people have a problem with increasing the number of work visas from Mexico, or making legal immigration easier. However, protecting the borders against illegal immigration didn't even require any new laws. Just enforce the existing ones while working on an immigration policy. It did NOT have to become a crisis situation. From the time W started pushing the open borders his popularity dropped like a rock (this was before the 2004 election). I think a lot of people started rightly asking, "Why is my son (daughter) in Iraq, when our southern border is wide open and we have NO IDEA who's coming across?" It undercut his entire argument. The Dubai Ports deal may have been a good business move, but it had to be the dumbest political move of the last thirty years. In the middle of the WOT, we were talking about selling management contracts to an Islamic country on the southern border of Iraq. Whatever credibility W had on the WOT died with that move.
There were dozens of other things that came together, but I think these had a collective effect in seriously damaging the biggest area of Republican advantage.
Please note, I am not saying the Republicans losing was a good thing. I voted R. I am saying these issues hurt us.
"Meantime, I am frightened to the core to learn that there are freepers (obviously skilled in the art of deception and propaganda) who willfully and boldly attempt to deny the counterfeiting activities of hezbollah terrorists."
Hey, aren't you the a$$hat who was bemoaning tracking terrorist banking activities? IT was too much paperwork?
Wasn't that one of the reasons you listed for voting for the terrorist enabling Democrats -- or staying at home in Mom's basement and playing Dungeons and Dragons instead?
Like I said. It's demoralizing to see such "intellect" on parade.
"The Dubai Ports deal may have been a good business move, but it had to be the dumbest political move of the last thirty years. In the middle of the WOT, we were talking about selling management contracts to an Islamic country on the southern border of Iraq. Whatever credibility W had on the WOT died with that move."
Never mind that Saudi Arabia has similarly "managed" 9 US port facilities since 1979:
Saudi Shipping Company “Controls” 9 US Ports | Sweetness & Light
http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/meet-the-national-shipping-company-of-saudi-arabia
You (and too many others) were spun by the DNC media and you didn't even know it.
LOL
I don't think these half sized bills would fool anybody.
Well, maybe you. LOL!
That list hit me like a punch in the gut.... I can't believe how much success MoveOn.org bought last week :-(
Goodnight, now that you've given me nightmares... arghhh.
Never mind the fact that Schmuck orchestrated the GOP circle firing squad from behind closed doors.
Many people seemed to have learned the lesson fine--don't vote for Republicans with the expectation that their actions will follow their words. Being a lemming is stepping out of the arena.
Anecdotally, it's amazing how many people are 'ok' with abortion. From talking w/ friends and acquaintences, even self-styled 'conservatives' many have no problems w/ abortion. sad.
Good on you for opposing it.
Some of the Bozos out there can't get past that word “God,” so they would just piss the entire country away and join the enemies of America; all because they have this polemic need to bash the Christians and do everything in contravention to them. I say screw them and the filthy practices they want to live by. My children are not going to inherit their squalor if I can help it.
Are all cultures equal? Hell no...
Only a cultural Marxist would think so.
Schansberg is an interesting fellow. He's a devout Evangelical Christian, active in the largest local megachurch (16,000-member Southeast Christian Church), and he's an economics professor at a regional campus of Indiana University. He calls himself a pro-life Libertarian and he has written a sizable book, Turn Neither to the Right Nor the Left, detailing why Libertarianism and Evangelical Christianity are compatible. (He was unable to find a publisher interested in both subjects, so he self-published on 'Alertness Press'.)
Hey... at least its water. Maybe with enough "low pressure hoses", we can finally get that fire put out. The alternative is to continue to pour either gas or oil on the fire.
Even more instructive, cite why you are trying to use the failure of conservatives to get re-elected as an excuse to drag us all Leftward? You WANT the GOP to be more liberal? To try and out Democrat the Democrats? Why don't you just vote Dem and leave the rest of us alone?
That is the LP. Also note, that it goes further than the Republican platform in as much as the LP is against Roe V Wade in so much as the LP's stated position is that it should be a States issue to decide.
But, since that doesn't fit in your narrow little preconcieved notions and it doesn't further your lies about "l"ibertarian philosophy, you'll ignore it and move on to the next twisting of words and ignorance of facts.
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.