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".
If Republicans put up the insane guy or the guy in the dress...I'm with you. :) However, Hayworth was not worth a libertarian death.
If you think taxes (which have gone down, btw) and government spending are the defining issues of the day you are a fool.
But the rest of your posts already suggest that's the case.
It's a very empty victory for the libertarians.
They may feel like they are perfectionists, or idealists, or non-compromisers, but I think they are masochists who revel in their misery.
They same is true for the "true conservatives" who would not vote for "RINOs", or the Immigration myopia crowd.
The democratic strategists threw all kinds of wedge issues at us and we split up like a cheap suit.
Not sure humans are ready for real anarchy/self governance. They ARE ready for a Constitutional Republic built on respect for individual Rights and Liberty. Maybe we should think about getting back at least that far some day. Don't you think?
In case my tagline escaped you, it essentially suggests that one should never argue with a fool. They can bring you down to their level and beat you with their experience.
And yet, here you are. Back again...
BTW... my bet is for you to be the "jackass".
Bump.
You're senile.
No, I definitely remember navigator and his buddy Mojo planning a Vegas Convention visit that year.
You're a liar.
Weird claim, as my memory, even if its a 'senile' mistake, can hardly be classed as a 'lie'.
I never met Navigator. And we never planned to ever meet any where at any time for any purpose.
Fine, I guess then you are not Mojo.. - Glad to hear that.
In fact, he is famous for no one ever having met him.
Didn't someone in your faction claim they had met him at his ranch in Santa Barbara -- and that he was in a wheelchair?
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?
-- you've always been a liar. And all you have ever done is attack people and post lies.
You are a bitter old man [says 'Mr. Bitter' libertarian baiter] - and it shows in every post.
Deja vu .. -- I've been hearing that "bitter old man" line since '98, when Mojo first used it.
-- If you're not Mojo, who were you?
High probability of federal employment, IMHO.
============================================
It's a lesson I totally relate to.
Sam, forget it. It's like arguing with a post. When these guys breath they have to switch their thinking process from their hind brain to their gonads.
If there is a suspect terrorist, track his banking activities. The unPA allows the fed to track all our banking activities. How bout we just keep it simple and track the banking activities of suspect terrorists? Successful task masters would call it focusing on the problem. Sorta like taking aside my 80 year old mother in law in her wheelchair at the airport (actual occurence) for a cavity search is not focusing on the problem. It's being politically correct. Meantime, a potential terrorist could simply breeze right through screening. Are you so dense that you can't figure this out on your own?
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?
More lies and deceptions from the Sam Hill camp. Exactly what is your motive for posting such a lie? I would expect such from the Clinton camp, but not from someone here.
Like I said. It's demoralizing to see such "intellect" on parade.
Some folks simply can't handle the truth. You can be demoralized all you want, but the truth eventually prevails over lies and deceptions. It is now apparent to me that posting lies and deceptions is your MO. I am still working on your motive. Maybe you are a muslim? Maybe you are a politician? Maybe you are a plant from DU? Obviously you have one thing in common with the lot of them, nearly all will attempt to shuck and jive when confronted with the truth.
The defining issues of today are the same as they were when this country was founded, even the War on Terror. The only difference today is the names of the terrorists.
Europe is probably doomed, and the reason is because of taxes and the socialism that goes hand and hand with it. Their productive members are fleeing and they are being replaced with ignorant Muslims. Not every battle is fought with guns and bullets, some are fought with ideals and principles.
Bush tried and failed with a congress that was completely Republican controlled to reform the Social Security System. It wasn't even an issue in this last election, that is how utterly it was defeated, by Republicans no less. Everyone can clearly see that the system will collapse in 20 years or so unless something is done now.
You on the other hand are more interested in bashing Libertarians than you are in promoting any constructive solutions now, when it is easy.
One more point, the next big war is an economic war with Asia (China and its surrounding area and India). This is a war that will be fought and won or lost without a bullet being fired. The losers will pay a terrible price. The current war on terror will just be a foot note in the victors history book.
I find that career federal bureaucrats seem to be statistically way over-represented among the virulent anti-libertarians.
You're right of course.
What's funny is that the only time one sees these creeps even posting around here is when they are chortling over how they managed to show their awesome power by handing the Democrats another win.
You'll notice that no one took on the challenge to show one way in which their viewpoint diverges from that of their master, George Soros.
So how are they different from the DNC today?
Anyway, I'm leaving the thread. Like every LP thread, it's like trying to talk to a room full of Rumpelstiltskins.
You remember the gold-crazed irrational dwarf who never did anything except get so mad and stomp so hard he fell through the floor.
Rumpelstiltskin should be the mascot of the l/Libertarian (non) party.
I certainly recall the Rumpelstiltskin fairy tale although I must admit I don't recall ever actually reading it. Good analogy though. I too will leave this thread about whether or not dwarfs are significant in America's political system.
A Lebanese resident of a Beirut suburb counts US dollar bills that he received from Hizbullah as a compensation for losing his house in Lebanon on Friday. Photo: AP
The US Treasury Dept acknowledges that hizbollah terrorists counterfeit the yankee dollar.
Why are you attempting to deceive everyone?
I've been reading and posting here since 1996,, before there even was registration.
In fact, my first ID was banned because I defended GHW Bush from the charge that he was at the top of the pyramid of the CIA's drug dealing -- and other similarly proposterous accusations.
When I was banned by the owner, I was told this site wanted nothing to do with my "blood-sucking party."
I'm not even a registered Republican, I don't think. (My state is complicated.)
Say Sam, -- what's with this hate for libertarians you now display? - Did they reject you back in '98?
tpaine
------------------------------------
DC:
Must have gotten turned down by all those "loose moral" LP girls...
-------------------------------------
tacticalogic wrote:
High probability of federal employment, IMHO.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If memory serves, our boy had no real employment in those early days at FR, as he was in the process of writing a book.
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.