How right you are.
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".
"Yes the Republicans lost the Congress by a very narrow margin, but the truth is that they never really had it. The Rino's actually dictated what could and couldn't be done. Now the moderate Democrats (many of whom are more conservative than the Rinos) get to control the Democratic party."
What planet are you on?
Have you seen who will control Congress -- who will chair what committees?
It is like talking to brain damaged children to try to have a discussion with libertarians.
There's probably a reason for that. Why do you think they call it dope?
Does Soros pay good benefits?
How right you are.
Google is your friend.
So, do you support a UN-enforced international ban on abortion, or do you respect national sovereignty?
And if we vote for your Left-leaning candidates, like McCain, Guliani, et al... how does that change this equation?
I am in favor of everything you listed.
God bless you Roch_vet. I've been away from ROC for over a year now. I love New Hampshire, but I do miss Rochester. I will be home for Thanksgiving and am looking forward to seeing friends and family. Take care!
A) the correct view is found in the Constitution and
B) a general location for the Framers' view confirming said argument(I will get you to read the Federalist Papers one day...perhaps it's today?)
And for my brief interjection into the discussion I get name calling. I realize logical arguments do sail over your head, and actual Constitutional discussions are a bit out of your purview, but surely Sam you could provide just a few, however brief, words from the Framers supporting your supposition that this power was ever intended to lay in Washington? No Coulterisms, no Rushdie wisdom, just a few simple writings from the Framers of the United States Constitution that states the majority of issues internal to a state or its citizens were to be determined by the national government
Please note, and I realize this will pain you, that even if a Constitutional Amendment were to be passed on abortion, quality of life discussions, the number of green M&Ms in a bag, etc (and this is assuming someone would be dumb enough to do it) that the final say would come down to the state legislatures, again confirming that this issue has been and always will be resolved by the separate and sovereign states.
As you have yet, or ever, been able to actually counter my points I want you to squint real hard, turn that brainpower on, and come up with a good name this time will you? I'm pulling for you. Really I am...
Say Sam, weren't you and your buddy navigator big supporters of the RLC at one point in '98? -- Seems to me I remember you two making plans to attend a Caucus convention in Vegas that year. -- Did you go?
What's with this hate for libertarians you now display? - Did they reject you back in '98?
Well, your choice of candidates aren't. Not sure if you noticed that or not.
Must have gotten turned down by all those "loose moral" LP girls...
"Say Sam, weren't you and your buddy navigator big supporters of the RLC at one point in '98? -- Seems to me I remember you two making plans to attend a Caucus convention in Vegas that year. -- Did you go?
What's with this hate for libertarians you now display? - Did they reject you back in '98?"
You're senile. I have never had anything to do with the RLC.
Sorry but I don't care enough about the institution of anarchy to Google how to do it. Also sorry but I must end this conversation.
You're senile.
No, I definitely remember navigator and his buddy Mojo planning a Vegas Convention visit that year.
I have never had anything to do with the RLC.
Well then, - what is it with this hate for libertarians you now display? - Did a libertarian scare you at some point?
Is it because libertarians support & defend the Constitution?
God bless you too, t_skoz! New Hampshire is a beautiful place. I was gone from Rachacha for almost 10 years as well. Although I love it here, there's alot of issues brewing. Check out the discussion forums on the D&C website for an insight of what's happening:
Democrat and Chronicle Local News Forum
After reviewing the different issues, such as the Fast Ferry sale being delayed, Midtown Plaza, Mayor Duffy vs. Ron Evangelista, etc... you'll be armed for discussion when you get home next week!
Yeah, you know your stuff all right.
Apparently you don't follow the Supreme Court rulings at all do you?
"It aint what you don't know that kills you. It's what you know that aint so" Theodore Sturgeon
You are nothing but wreckers and well-poisoners. The suicide bombers of American politics.
Then why on earth would you want us to vote Republican?
And just because you want to smoke dope.
It is all about personal responsibility. I am responsible for my life and actions. The only drugs I take are vitamins and occasionally some caffeine. You obviously drink alcohol (I can tell by your postings), but that is your right. At least for a little while longer.
Have you seen who will control Congress -- who will chair what committees?
It is like talking to brain damaged children to try to have a discussion with libertarians.
There's probably a reason for that. Why do you think they call it dope?
Does Soros pay good benefits?
-------------
Do you have any arguments left that are better than personal attacks? LOL
What you fail to understand is that we are not your enemy. Why do you hate us?
So apparently you think that the war on terror is more important than our fight for freedom?
I think someone said something once about exchanging Freedom for Security and getting what they deserve.
I feel sorry for you. I really do.
"No, I definitely remember navigator and his buddy Mojo planning a Vegas Convention visit that year."
You're a liar. I never met Navigator. And we never planned to ever meet any where at any time for any purpose. In fact, he is famous for no one ever having met him.
But you've always been a liar. And all you have ever done is attack people and post lies.
You are a bitter old man and it shows in every post.
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.