Posted on 08/25/2014 8:01:34 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Fox News recently had a political story noting that in several close Senate races in red states, Libertarian candidates might keep the Republican nominee from winning seats held by Democrats today. In the last three election cycles, liberal Democrats in Senate races have won races with less than half the vote, and with the majority of the vote going to the Republican nominee and candidates more conservative than that nominee.
In 2008, Mark Begich won in Alaska with 47.8% of the vote, while Republican Ted Stevens earned 46.6% and Bob Bird of the Alaska Independence Party, endorsed by Ron Paul, won 4.2%. Al Franken in Minnesota won 41.99% of the vote, while Republican Norm Coleman won 41.98% and Dean Barkley, a Perot and Ventura supporter, got 15.1% of the vote. Jeff Merkely in Oregon got 48.9% of the vote, while Gordon Smith received 45.6% and Constitution Party candidate Dave Brownlow won 5.2% of the vote. In 2012, the same pattern emerged.
How much have leftist Democrats prospered by the division of conservative votes? Consider that Democrat Jon Test in Montana in 2006 got 49.2% of the vote, while Republican Conrad Burns got 48.3% of the vote and Libertarian Stan Jones got 2.6%, and then in 2012, Democrat Jon Tester won 48.6% of the vote, while Republican Denny Rehberg got 44.9% while Libertarian Dan Cox received 6.1%. Tester won his seat and then six years later defended it because his opposition was split.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
... And they get election money and 15 min fame. just like the reform party, it is all about the money and the party.
I defer to him, however in the definition of libertarianism as the heart and soul of conservatism.
_____________________________________________
You persist with your mischaracterization and your out of context selective “quote”. In other words - YOU LIE.
Lets put it this way. You got a link for that interview you keep referring to? If you do - post it. And we’ll prove you are lying.
If you don’t then shut up.
hahahahaahahahahahahaha. Yeah right. When you can’t field a decent candidate, blame 3rd parties. Republicans can be such whiners some times.
exactly
Sorry pal. The dare is on you. And has been for some time. See post 62 for a repeat of your obligation to prove us wrong.
Taking the 1975 quote out of context of the rest of the interview, it to be selling a lie.
Besides, it was his way of reversing it to the libertarians, first he tells them that they should embrace conservatism, and then he explains why they are misguided by refusing to do so.
This strategy has been in effect for the Democrats since Perot. It’s obvious. The DemocRats never have a candidate that threatens to split their vote. Gee, I wonder why?
Here is the link to the interview with the libertarians in 1975.
http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan/print
Thanks. I’ve had a similar link up for some time. Waiting to see if muir will find if. Even if he does see this - I expect him to kerp repeating the liberal lie.
Oh well.
It is quite a masterful interview by Reagan, I hope he won some converts away from libertarianism with it.
Reagan was indeed more than gracious to libs back in 1975. (Wow! nearly 40 years ago)
Imagine what his disgust would be now towards them as they have moved solidly to the left on issues like abortion, pornography, queer marriages, isolationism, open borders and more.
Yet there are libs here at FR who (vainly and incorrectly) use one selection of one interview to bolster their anti-conservative ideals.
Whattaya gonna do?
Those were all positions that they held from the beginning, although I don’t think immigration was on the radar in the 1972 platform, or perhaps the first couple of them.
Libertarianism has not changed at all.
It is real simple....
I am going to vote for the small government candidate every time. If there are two small government candidates then I will vote for the one most likely to defeat the statist. I don't give a damn about which party they associate with. It could be Socialist Vs Constitution Vs Libertarian or Democrat Vs Republican Vs Green or Labour Vs Conservative Vs UKIP. I don't care. The candidate that advocates more forcefully (and believably) for a radically smaller role of government in our lives gets my vote. Understand, when I say "smaller" I don't mean "smaller than a fascist tyranny". I mean smaller like how the founders designed it.
Looking at the majority of Republicans now a days, I don't know if I will ever get the chance to vote for a Republican ever again.
It is real simple, libertarianism is left wing on at least two thirds of the political agenda.
Here is the leftists agenda hidden behind the Libertarian curtain.
Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political boundaries”, eliminate the Border Patrol and INS.
Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.
Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments full 9 months.
Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science and marketers can come up with, zero restrictions.
Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.
Military Strength; minimal capabilities.
No. It’s not out of context to any degree whatsoever. His words are as clear as a bell and you can’t change them at all. He simply defined libertarianism as the heart and soul of conservatism. There is nothing you can ever say that will change that clear statement. You are simply wrong.
I don’t have to prove you wrong I simply side with Reagan as he defined libertarianism as the heart of conservatism. I don’t have to prove anything; that quote stands on its own unless you can demonstrate a quote of his to the contrary. You can’t. You’re wrong.
Do your own damned research. It’ll be a refreshing change for you. I gave you the quote; google it. Prove me wrong, you can’t.
Their words do. I spoke of their motivations. Sadly, those have disappeared, largely.
Hard to argue with such well researched logic and it’s conclusion. You’re cutting new ground in your intellectual growth.
Since you can only keep repeating yourself, I guess you really don’t understand much, or care to.
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.