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 ...
Have you been drinking? You were gone long enough.
When you sober up, perhaps you’ll catch up with the rest of this thread as we did indeed link to the entire interview. Read it when your able. Then come back and apologize. Until then....
Shut up.
Make me. His statement stands. Wiggle all you want weasel, you can’t change a syllable
I know what Reagan said, I know what I said, he and I agree and we’re right. You’re wrong, still and always.
exactly
that too
LOL, your defense is being like a child?
My defense is the truth. The words are plain. You are the one who is behaving like the GOP-e, seeking to change his words. The point of conservatism, the basic, fundamental point, is a small government; smaller wherever possible and leaving each other alone, leaving each to his own freedom. Big government control freaks like you and the others who have been attacking me and Reagan’s clear words will never understand that.
I need no defense beyond this truth.
Either a child or (post 81) he’s drunk.
His last post on this thread was 4:52 AM (Central)? He’s going to be mighty embarrassed later today when he sobers up and reads his trash.
http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan/print
Interesting!
REASON: Would you allow anything to go by way of hard core pornography as long as there are willing and consensual buyers?
REAGAN: I didnt want the picture industry doing it. I just think its bad business. But Im opposed to outside censorship.
REASON: Do you have any views as to the effectiveness of the Libertarian Party?
REAGAN: Id like to see the Libertarian PartyI dont say they should quit being a partyId like to see them, Id like to see the conservatives, Id like to see some of these other parties maybe come to this remnant of the Republican Party which is basically conservative in its thinking and, I think, akin to the philosophy Im talkingId like to see them all come in (and this would include a large segment of the Democratic Party in this country, that certainly proved in 1972 that they do not follow the leadership of the Democratic Party any longer) and be able to say to them, OK were not saying to you give up what youre doing, but, cant we find a common meeting ground in order at least to defeat first of all those who are doing what theyre doing to us (and this present Congress is an example)? I think this is the most irresponsible and most dangerous Congress, in my experience, that this country has ever had. I think were seeing it in the crumbling now of our position worldwide, their attitude in Indochina. Maybe many of the young people that you write for, with their hatred of war and disillusionment with what went on, dont feel this way and any thought of Indochina is going to be a red flag to them; but, for the first time in 200 years, the United States has violated its word, has abandoned an ally that it pledged to help and were seeing the result. Mr. Kissinger came home from the Middle East empty handed because even the Israelis said, "What? Give up the passes on the basis of your word that you will help us? We now see evidence that maybe you wont help us. You cant guarantee your promise." So the dominos fall. To me this is whats most importantif we could all make a change in that Congress that now has a two-thirds majority.
I think the Republican Party should take the lead and, as I say, raise that banner and say this is what we stand for. And what we stand for would be fiscal responsibility.
It is interesting. It also has nothing to do with the conversation we were having that proves Reagan was no libertarian and that he denounced lib ideals.
But what is interesting about the clip you posted is Reason’s question. It shows that - even back nearly 40 years ago - libertarians were interested in pro-pornography concerns.
Fast forward to today... Nothing has changed.
Libertarians appeal to the baser instincts, which will invariably move people to the left and to the leftists
His opposing outside censorship of pornography has nothing to do with libertarian ideals?
Don’t be stupid - you retread newbie troll - His opposing pornography in the movie industry period is what has nothing to do libertarian ideals
Have you now branched out from a pro-dope agenda to pro-pornography as well?
He had a sentence after that period: "But Im opposed to outside censorship." Sounds libertarian-friendly to me.
Would you guys lay off this pinging everyone to your posts?
If I want to read the thread I will, but I’m not so hanging onto your every word that I want to get on your group pings.
Reagan, as all conservatives, oppose censorship on principle.
However, opposition to censorship shouldn't be equated to approval of pornography any more than opposition to Prohibition being equated with support for drunk driving.
Moreover, principled opposition to censorship or pornography DOES NOT mean that you would be opposed to its cessation.
Now, if you think that President Reagan somehow supported pornography or at least wasn't opposed to it, I suggest you read The Meese Commission Report sometime.
No, its conservative-friendly. If Reagan was lib-friendly he would be in agreement with porn. All he is doing here is simply making the conservative case that while he is against pornography - he respects that the government must not arbitrate.
How you liberals can attempt to glom on to conservative ideals and try and hijack them as your own is preposterous.
If Reagan truly took a libertarian POV on porn, he would be arguing for a removal on ALL restrictions.
Kiddie porn? Sure!
Common courtesy requires that you be pinged to ongoing replies to comments which you have been a party to.
Don’t like it? Don’t reply in the first place.
Having said that - I’ll leave you in the dark here.
However, opposition to censorship shouldn't be equated to approval of pornography any more than opposition to Prohibition being equated with support for drunk driving.
Moreover, principled opposition to censorship or pornography DOES NOT mean that you would be opposed to its cessation.
Sounds libertarian-friendly to me.
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.