Liberterrarian.
Bob Barr will be debating in NYC in January on guess what topic? Medical marijuana.
This should be interesting.
Ping
As soon as this party starts to gain a significant following, the Republican Party will adopt the same platform. You don't think they're going to just sit back and lose.
Now, that's good for us, but spells doom for the third party. Once they're gone, the Republican Party goes back to what they were doing before.
The only advantage to officially belonging to a party is participating in the "primary process." Otherwise it is pointless.
Even after a voter changes official party designation or claims independent status, the original party still probably bombards the voter with spam, begging for cash.
Independent and off the radar is the best bet.
Republicans keep making the same false assumption about the liberal-tarians. They keep thinking these people are on our side and groan every time we lose a close race by less than the votes a liberal-tarian gets. This is a waste of time. These people aren't our voters. The rat is the one who should moan when WE win a close race like that. liberal-tarians are just democrats who don't like hearing that they are out loud. Barr is a jerk. He was and may still be on the board of the aclu. You do the math.
The problem is, the Republicans haven't given people who don't agree with the religious right, pork-barrel spending, or general incompetence much of an alternative.
He's right. Next Election, vote either Federalist, Whig, or Democratic-Republican!
opinion.
I think that's about as wrong as it can be. It's the LP's failure to build a party structure at the state and local level that keeps them from winning much of anything. You need canvassers and envelope stuffers, people to make coffee and sandwiches, gofers, somebody who can meet the guest speaker and make sure he has a room reserved....
You know, all that boring stuff that Libertarians are too high-minded to bother with.
So how the Hell was the Republican Party born? Immaculate conception? The problem with the LP is the kook leadership that focuses on drugs, porn, & prostitutes instead of limiting government & getting us out of the UN. Plus they're ambiguous on some of the issues. If they spent more time on the latter they'd get somewhere.
A few times they will run their own candidates, but they seem to mostly recommend the least objectionable of the viable candidates.
If the Libertarian Party were to just refuse to nominate its own candidate until such time as a very high profile person is willing to step into that position, then they might get more respect and have more success.
Existing as a party with the skills and manpower to help support other candidates would be a good selling point in the short run until they can attract someone reasonable to run as a Libertarian.
Ah I see. The existence of the Libertarian Party is what made Republicans move to the left since 1994. Because they existed to forward the idea of limited government and less bureaucracy, the Republicans had to move to the left to counter the effect...It's so clear now.....
Theoretically, this is no barrier to third parties at the state and local level. But in practice, if a party cannot win at the presidential level, it is very unlikely to achieve success at lower levels of government. In short, the Electoral College imposes a two-party system on the country that makes it prohibitively difficult for third parties to compete.
And how does it do that again? Oh, because you say it does and don't offer any corraborating evidence to prove your point.
At times, serious people have tried to get control of the Libertarian Party and make it a viable organization. But in the end, the crazies who like the party just as it is have always run them off.
And this would be different from the Republican party who has to deal with threats from social theocrats who desire to impose morality at the federal level each and every election? And he wonders why people are leaving the party?
There are quite a few social conservatives out there that also believe in limited government (like myself). That believe the original intent was to leave moral issues to the separate and sovereign states, not advocate passing an Amendment anytime someone wanted 'their' cause standardized. And if the only choice is voting for Sen. Nutball who wants to involve the federal government in what are clearly state decisions and Rep. Spend-a-lot who's never seen a program he didn't like, I'll continue to vote Libertarian or write in a candidate.
Contrary to this author's view, the Framers did not necessarily see nor intend a division of only two parties. Washington warned against it and yet this 'conservative' is saying if you don't buy into it, you're hurting the cause. Although the cause of getting his 'team' to top of the hill is about the only 'cause' you're hurting
No. The reason Libertarians can win is because 97% of America and holding knows better.