Will You Now Reconsider?


PDA






NIGHTWATCH
June 25, 2005, 12:10 PM
Stemming from this thread http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=144349

Given the steady decline of our freedoms, is there a chance now for the Libertarian Party? :confused:

The decline is steady. Will the American voter see the light as all reasoning in favor of sustaining the two party system begins to fade?

If you enjoyed reading about "Will You Now Reconsider?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
fjolnirsson
June 25, 2005, 12:14 PM
I think if the libertarian party would field serious candidates instead of people who are seen as whackos by the majority of America, they might have a chance. That is, If they had some money for advertising. If they would push for more public awareness.

I do think it's time for a third party.

But, what do I know, I'm just a stupid Libertarian who "wastes" my vote instead of choosing an evil.

Sorry, I'm feeling rather bitter this morning.

NIGHTWATCH
June 25, 2005, 12:15 PM
I understand.

Lone_Gunman
June 25, 2005, 12:54 PM
The biggest impediment to the Libertarian party growing is their opinion that drugs should be legalized. I understand their argument, and I agree with them, at least on a theoretical basis, to some degree.

However, you will never convince Mr. and Mrs. Joe Sixpack that drugs should be made legal. The government has pushed the idea that drugs should be illegal for at least 3 generations now, and public opinion is unlikely to change any time soon.

Until they lose this plank on their platform, the libertarians are doomed to stand on the sidelines.

Secondly, the Libertarian Party needs to pick candidates who understand at least the basics of hygeine: showers, shaving, and brushing of the teeth go a long way. Some of the people I have seen who were Libertarians appear to have only recently moved out from underneath a bridge somewhere.

I do not believe the Libertarian Party, in its present form, has any future.

Justin
June 25, 2005, 01:01 PM
However, you will never convince Mr. and Mrs. Joe Sixpack that drugs should be made legal. Disagree. My parents are both card-carrying members of the Republican party, as well as Focus on the Family. Despite this, both of them have recently come to the conclusion that the War on Drugs isn't such a bright idea.

Now, if two fifty-something, dyed-in-the-wool members of the religious right can come to this conclusion, anyone can.

Personally, though, I agree that the LP needs to drop legalization as their main issue. They'd probably garner much more support if they were to pick up on an issue pretty much everyone deals with- namely taxes, or more recently, property rights/emminent domain issues.

SIOP
June 25, 2005, 01:05 PM
The government has pushed the idea that drugs should be illegal for at least 3 generations now

Other ideas pushed by government: That abortion is protected under the Constitution; that the Ten Commandments can't be displayed on public property; that you can get away with murder if a cop fails to read you your rights before you spill your guts; that confiscating your hard-earned money to redistribute it to lazy-assed welfare scum is permissible under the Constitution; etc, etc.

And don't forget that the people who protray the Libertarians as wackos are the same people trying to protect their own power base.

But not to worry, most people who would otherwise vote Libertarian won't, because they don't want to "waste their vote."

Rebar
June 25, 2005, 01:15 PM
There is a great opportunty for third parties to make real progress.

However, the sheer incompetence of the libertarian party practically guarenteees it won't be them that takes advantage of it.

30 years, and they haven't elected anyone of concequence, even the socialists have someone in the US house, they don't even have someone in a STATE rep or senate seat. If you can't get a state seat in 30 years of trying, that's rediculous.

They'd rather throw their time, money, and effort away on useless presidential bids, rather than build a real political grass-roots power base. The libertarians just don't have the will, discipline, and patience needed to be a real contender.

BeLikeTrey
June 25, 2005, 01:21 PM
and do so in this thread as well. I was wrong and freely admit it.

Now about my new party and some advice... strictly literal constitutional interpretation no kookie platform on drugs etc. I feel it is better not to have a stance on this than to have this legalize drugs stance.

again sorry about my wasted votes posts in the past. If Bush or the rest of the govt goofballs were against it (from either party) they'dve said so. Time for a group that is. Note to libertarians: LATCH ON TO THIS! THIS HAS ACROSS THE BOARD SUPPORT FROM BOTH PARTIES FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. this is a groundbreaking issue and the supreme court has provided an opportunity here for the third party to take off.

Car Knocker
June 25, 2005, 01:24 PM
I have my doubts that the two major parties would allow another party to seriously challenge their monopoly. Too much money and power are at stake.

Rebar
June 25, 2005, 01:36 PM
I have my doubts that the two major parties would allow another party to seriously challenge their monopoly. Too much money and power are at stake.
I disagree, a serious party with a solid long term plan can succeed. It's just that none of the current third parties have any plan at all that can be discerned.

As for "throwing away votes", I'm not going to validate someone's incompetence and stupidity for running a no-name Joe Shmoe every four years, when they can't get a dog catcher elected. It's up to them to run a viable candidate and campaign if they want my vote. And they'll never have a viable candidate, because they won't put the time and effort into building a state base.

Right now, you're better off working from within a party:
http://www.rlc.org/
then pinning your hopes on the proven incompetence and plain sillyness of the current crop of third parties.

fjolnirsson
June 25, 2005, 02:24 PM
It's just that none of the current third parties have any plan at all that can be discerned.

From the American Party website (http://www.americasparty.us/)
Our four corners are going to comprise what appears to me to be the big issues of today. issues that are rapidly coming to a head and which will decide the future of the United States. Those issues are IMMIGRATION, ENERGY, IDENTIFICATION and PROPERTY RIGHTS. The latter two are full of sub-issues, perhaps defined by the sub-issues and may in fact encompass most of any reasonable platform. Anyone who wants to contribute information or position ideas email chimera@ncci.net.

It's up to them to run a viable candidate and campaign if they want my vote. And they'll never have a viable candidate, because they won't put the time and effort into building a state base.

Timeline (http://www.americasparty.us/agenda.htm)

The problem is voter apathy. Even here on THR, I've tried to get people interested. Overwhelmingly, the answer has been, "Well, xxxx won't work, and I disagree with yyyy." The whole premise of theAmerican Party was voter input and building a party based on solid American principles which we would decide upon within the party. Nobody wants to put forth the effort. Apathy. Folks, as a whole, would rather whine and complain than do something to change their situation. If one is willing to make the appropriate sacrifices, and put forth the required effort, great things are possible. Most I've spoken with in my generation don't understand how I left behind poverty and a poor family life, and at the age of 29, own a 1700 sq ft home with no mortgage. Positive achievements are a result of hard work and self-sacrifice. Americans aren't familiar with that concept anymore, it seems.
Time and time again, I've seen folks here on THR try to get movements, letter campaigns, demonstrations going. The overwhelming response has been a big fat fizzle. Apathy.
Rant off.

SIOP
June 25, 2005, 02:31 PM
Now about my new party and some advice... strictly literal constitutional interpretation no kookie platform on drugs etc. I feel it is better not to have a stance on this than to have this legalize drugs stance.

I agree that the Libertarian party is not perfect and stands for some things I don't necessarily agree with, but they're head and shoulders above the Republicans and Democrats in my view.

Hawkmoon
June 25, 2005, 02:36 PM
I have long believed that the two party system has outlived any usefulness it may once have had. My father has been dead for more than 20 years and I used to have this very discussion with him. He was a staunch Rebublican, though, so he simply would not concede (in fact, I believe he would not see at all) that the party system is in place to preserve the positions and privileges of those who hold power in the party ... not to better represent the people.

But ... Libertarian? Not in this lifetime. As noted, Libertarians are mostly eccentric nut cases, and that includes my own cousins who (last I knew) were rabid Libertarians.

The best thing that could possibly happen to this country (but won't) would be to abolish parties entirely, and ask/demand/force anyone who wishes to run for any office to fund their own campaign or generate their own support base. "You have to support ___ because he's a Republican" (even though the Democrat may be clearly smarter, more honest, and more dedicated to the constituency) is ridiculous.

We should be voting for people and their ideas, not for parties and "platforms."

jefnvk
June 25, 2005, 02:54 PM
I like the idea of eliminating political parties. But you think either the Dems or Repubs are going to propose thast? Thought not. Maybe even go back to first place takes President, and second takes VP.

As for the libretarians, nope. They may be the most viable third party, but that still isn't saying much. They are pretty incompetent, as others have mentioned. I don't see the point in spend lots of money to get a President elected, when with a little bit of effort and redirection of those funds, they probably could fill lots of house seats.

2nd Amendment
June 25, 2005, 03:45 PM
Americas Party ain't done yet, fj. I'm trying to get some new software uploaded now so i can work on it again and I am thinking of actually shelling out the cash to get a website guru to work some magic. If ever there was a time for a Third party to at least scare the pants off the Big Two this is it...

And if it can't get attention under these circumstances then I at least have a definitve answer: America is too lazy to screw with trying to save.

fjolnirsson
June 25, 2005, 03:51 PM
Yeah, didn't actually mean to use the past tense, there. I'm just so darned bitter this morning, it's hard to think straight. Keep me posted, eh?

Brett Bellmore
June 25, 2005, 04:13 PM
Third party? Not a chance.

I was with the LP from nearly the beginning, joined back in the late '70s. But I was enough of a realist to understand that as soon as we became a real threat to one of the major parties, they'd pass laws to effectively outlaw us. The only chance we really had was to grow so fast that we were too big to kill before they realized the threat.

Didn't happen.

They've now passed enough campaign "reforms", and put enough other defenses in place, like "bipartisan" debate organizations, to make the third party route impossible. The reason the LP is full of nutjobs, is that the non-nutty Libertarians knew it was "game over" for the third party movement, and left. Either set out to work within one of the major parties, or outside the party structure in think tanks, or just got on with their lives.

And it isn't really that easy to work within the established parties, either; They've got defenses set up there, too. The people running the parties have no intention of letting the peons seize control.

wdlsguy
June 25, 2005, 04:30 PM
http://www.constitutionparty.com

Kamicosmos
June 25, 2005, 04:30 PM
I'm just a stupid Libertarian who "wastes" my vote instead of choosing an evil.

Me too.

I do wish the LP would focus more on state level elections. In Missouri this last time, the LP did pretty well. A young lady ran for state treasurer, and got something like 70,000+ votes, which secured the LP on the ballot for future elections, no more petitions to be on the ballot! Pretty impressive considering she is 23, never ran for office, and her campaign was a website, grass root movement, and a couple radio ads!

Now that's a start!

I too don't agree with some of the issues of the LP, but I agree with more of thier stances on issues than I do with Rep/Dem platforms. I'd like to consider the Constituition party as well, but they are a bit too religious for me...

Last time a 3rd party was a viable threat to the 2 main parties was in the early 1900's when Teddy Roosevelt ran under the Independents, I think.

Rebar
June 25, 2005, 04:51 PM
The problem is voter apathy.
Again I disagree.

The problem is, it's easy to talk a great game, but people want results. Results in this case means, running candidates and getting them elected. Not presidential candidates, at least not at first, but state reps, state senators, then a governor. Success breeds success, start small and build from there. No one respects someone who shows up out of the blue, and demands the top job. That's why governors win the presidentcy most of the time, they have a proven track record of at least that much acheivement. And that's why the libertarian party has failed miserably, they failed at building up the critical local power base, as will any other third party that does not learn this lesson.

For example, why should I give "Americas Party" the time of day? How many candidates have they run, how many won? Do they have the finances, organization, quality candidates, and achevable plans to make effective and viable campaigns for getting a majority in a state legislature? Then a solid chance at the govenorship? So far, I see none of that.

And again I say, for the forseeable future, more progress can be had by working within the republican party to push them more towards a libertarian/conservative agenda, then wasting time, money, and votes on incompetent losers.

hillbilly
June 25, 2005, 04:51 PM
Here's the other reason why the Libertarian party is largely seen as a joke.

Their "border policy" pretty much does away with any concept of "a border."

http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.shtml

Kamicosmos
June 25, 2005, 05:21 PM
Hillbilly,

I agree with you on their border policy, and really hope they revise it. I have heard they are doing just that.

The drug issue and the border issue are the big things I disagree with LP on.



I'm undecided on legalization of drugs. It's a good theory, and there are many laws in place already to control, say Driving under the influence, but we know how that goes. I don't think making Heroin easier and cheaper to get is going to help anything. But, the war on drugs is: A joke, ineffective, expensive, and costing us civil liberties. I dunno.

The border....well, sheesh. Everytime this topic comes up at THR, it makes me want to leave THR! sigh. I am a strong Isolationist, and would be perfectly happy with a large wall extending across both borders! But, that apparently makes me a racist to many of the members here. I support LEGAL immigration. But just opening the border wide open/granting amnesty to current illegals/eliminating passports...I don't support that. And it has nothing to do with racisim/xenophobia.

hillbilly
June 25, 2005, 05:41 PM
Border security has nothing whatsoever to do with racism.

If you don't have a border, you don't have a country.

Immigrants who come here legally, who are granted resident alien status, who are seeking US citizenship are wonderful in my opinion.

They bring vibrancy. Oftentimes, it's the real legal immigrants who come from repressive countries who are the ones to truly understand and appreciate freedom. Oleg Volk is a prime example.

As another example, I cite is my very good friend Khos, who was the first Mongolian in the US Marine Corps, who is now a fully-fledged, bona-fide, oath-taking US citizen with all the rights and freedoms guaranteed therein. He is the ultimate example, I think, of the value and power of legal immigration.

But millions who come here illegally, who don't assimilate, who don't learn English, who still consider their homes to be other countries, who aren't really looking for freedom and citizenship, but just a paycheck to be largely mailed back to their real country of residence?

That's a recipe for losing the country.

And until the Libertarians fix their platform on that issue, they are political loons unworthy of any serious consideration in my view.

hillbilly

Rebar
June 25, 2005, 05:47 PM
Border security has nothing whatsoever to do with racism.
+1 to that.

Did you know that the Mexican army patrols their southern border to keep central americans out? Does that make them racist too? No, just hypocrits.

Sam
June 25, 2005, 05:49 PM
I think most of us could tolerate the LP if they did away with the idiotic policy on immigration and the border.

Drug legalization is not as big an issue as most want to make it.

Until the LP runs some candidates in the general elections their chances are nil. Run the local and state elections for the visibility and to build credibility and they might have a chance.

Personally, I only vote for people and don't do parties at all.

Sam

Pointman
June 25, 2005, 05:52 PM
I think the Libertarian candidates would gain more traction if we could pronounce their names! :neener:

:D

Alex45ACP
June 25, 2005, 05:53 PM
We already have open immigration anyway.

Brett Bellmore
June 25, 2005, 05:56 PM
The border issue is certainly negotiable, but I can't see the LP giving up on it's opposition to the war on drugs. It's just too central to the principle that the LP was founded to advance: Essentially, that if you're not harming anybody else, the government should stay out of your face. That's the animating principle of the LP, and if they gave it up, there'd cease to be any reason for the party to exist.

And, frankly, I think it's one issue where the public is actually ahead of the political class, as demonstrated by medical pot initiatives and the like.

joab
June 25, 2005, 05:56 PM
is there a chance now for the Libertarian Party? I made the remark during the Terri Schiavo debacle that we may be witnessing the birth of a serious third party system.

If the Libretarians would just take it seriously and find a real candidate I'll vote for him if not I'll write in for myself

Byron Quick
June 25, 2005, 05:58 PM
If you can't get a state seat in 30 years of trying, that's rediculous.

Sorry, you haven't done your research for there have been LP state representatives. Andre Marrou, for one, Alaska. Check out his legislative record.

Ron Paul was a LP presidential candidate a few election cycles back. Suppose he bathes regularly? He runs as a Republican to get elected but listen to him...you don't hardly get more libertarian than he is.

As far as the LP's drug platform goes or border policy; I'm more concerned with their position on the intelligence community. I always heard that in the military that you should never give an order that you know will not be obeyed.
Frankly, I believe that the government is in the same position with many of its laws whose primary focus is increasing government control.

Borders? Open the borders. Just tell them that they'll get the same government checks as everyone else: none. Criminals? Teach the populace to defend themselves against criminals with deadly force and kill them. They'll get the message when the casualty rate gets high enough. Terrorists?
Have the intelligence apparatus to track them. When you get proof that they're terrorists then kill them. Capture them for intelligence purposes if necessary. Release them where they can easily resume their activities. Watch them and when they resume...kill them. Put signs up at the borders that everyone is free here but that this freedom includes the right to starve if you won't work and the right to be killed if you infringe upon the rights of others.

Brett Bellmore
June 25, 2005, 06:06 PM
Open borders are rendered impractical by the high level of tax funded government services in this country, combined with our bordering on a third world country. Open the border completely, and you get just too many people coming in to enjoy the services, who don't pay enough taxes to pay their way.

You can't take the fence down around a gated community with a water park paid for by association dues, if it's sitting next to a ghetto.

NIGHTWATCH
June 25, 2005, 06:13 PM
I am frustrated with their border policy as well. It makes little sense in light of terrorism...

I think also that there needs to be a new twist on their pro-drug stance. Rather than legalizing drugs they should work to continue to control these substances but without criminal prosecution for the petty user. Confiscate what a user may have but reserve fines and long jail terms to the dealers. As well as aggressive campaigns to stop the cartels. Guarding our borders is the first step.

One thing I believe strongly is that an historic opportunity has surfaced after the recent actions by the supreme court regarding eminent domain. Across the board people are afraid because the criminal disregard by government and corporate America of our freedoms are reaching a point of intolerance. It is hitting home.

The Constitution Party sounds good, very patriotic but very christian also. Which I agree with but also understand will politically divide. Moral or conservative positions must now take a backseat to individual rights of all shades in order for a third party to succeed. If not than we are back to square one.

If the Libertarian Party fails to make some very decisive changes and does not act now to take advantage of the opportunity they have to be heard, I dont think I will be able to continue to support them. As far as I will be concerned, they will have missed the boat. Getting a candidate into the next presidential debate for the sake of being heard would be a victory but too far off to be decisive. :(

Pointman
June 25, 2005, 06:14 PM
You can't take the fence down around a gated community with a water park paid for by association dues, if it's sitting next to a ghetto.

Now that is profound and is going into my list of Quotations.

dolanp
June 25, 2005, 06:25 PM
The problem is mostly the people and not necessarily the party. Old people make up the major voting bloc and they have usually voted the same way forever and ever. Not only that but they only fill out one question at the top of the voting card, the Straight-R or Straight-D line. Then they just turn it in. I'm sure many people do this, not just the elderly either. I voted for every Libertarian that was on the ballot and when I looked up the numbers after they lost, well, I was in short company.

Sad thing is the Libertarian party has to spend a great amount of its money gathering signatures and filing legal maneuvers just to even be on that ballot. The two powers that be can certainly agree on one thing: they don't want to share their power with any third parties. They have made it nice and difficult to even consider mounting a challenge.

I can't even imagine the smear campaign that would go on against them if they were ever enough of a threat to be airing TV commercials and running neck-and-neck with the other two parties. "These crazy psycho hippie paranoid druggies want to turn our society into some crazy militia land and get rid of the government and eat babies!"

Standing Wolf
June 25, 2005, 06:45 PM
Given the steady decline of our freedoms, is there a chance now for the Libertarian Party?

Probably not, but I'm still voting Libertarian.

Jim Diver
June 25, 2005, 08:14 PM
I will think about voting LP once they drop the drug legilization and open border things....

Till then I vote Constitution Party.

rhubarb
June 26, 2005, 02:16 AM
Libertarians are mostly eccentric nut casesI resemble that comment! :D

Yep, it's time to put a real Texan in the White House: Ron Paul. I wouldn't care if he ran under the Mauve Panther Party, I'd vote for him.

I voted for the first time in the 2000 election - for Harry Browne. I'd never heard of him or the Libertarian Party. I walked into the booth with the intention of voting for Bush and agin Gore. When I saw the list of parties, I thought, "Liberty. That's a good cause." I then went and read about the Libertarians and was happy.

I done it again last year. I ain't never gonna vote for no stinkin Repugnantcrat as long as they are determined to defecate on my Constitution of the United States of America. If that makes me mostly an eccentric nut case, so be it.

Whichever it is, I hope that some party rises to political prominence soon that respects the Constitution and my rights.

chaim
June 26, 2005, 03:19 AM
However, the sheer incompetence of the libertarian party practically guarenteees it won't be them that takes advantage of it.

30 years, and they haven't elected anyone of concequence, even the socialists have someone in the US house, they don't even have someone in a STATE rep or senate seat. If you can't get a state seat in 30 years of trying, that's rediculous.

They'd rather throw their time, money, and effort away on useless presidential bids, rather than build a real political grass-roots power base. The libertarians just don't have the will, discipline, and patience needed to be a real contender.

I agree that to be taken seriously the Libertarians have to worry less about the presidency and start small.

What one state rep in Alaska, not exactly a great track record. A few other small 'l' Libertarians, but they had to become Democrats and Republicans to be elected to anything.

I live in central MD, not exactly a poor or small area. The only Libertarian I remember on my ballot was for president and Senate. They need to be running for the small offices and getting a few elected before they'll ever have a chance to put in a US Senator or president, or even before the other parties will see them as enough of a threat to start seriously considering encorporating Libertarian issues into their own platforms.

Still, that said, I did vote Libertarian last time. There was no way I could vote for Bush, I would vote for anyone but Bush. But then, there was Kerry. If there was no other option but Democrat and Republican, Kerry was almost the only person that would cause me to vote for Bush. By voting Libertarian I could vote against Bush without voting for the even more reprehensible Kerry.

Jeff
June 26, 2005, 03:34 AM
NO, NO, NO, NO!

Separate issues have no bearing on the Libertarian Party's success.

Do you think anyone gives a hoot or thinks twice about, say.....the border issue? Do you think anyone contemplates, seriously.....the drug legalization issue-- at least to the point where it is a make or break issue?

Who cares?

The Libertarian Party is doomed to fail because THEY ARE NOT PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS. It's that simple.

Democratics and Republicans are PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS. They have been the only parties in the last 150 yrs or so that are relevant. They compete with each other in every single race to see who is the most relevant at that particular office at that particular point in time. That element alone makes them what they are to this day.

They compete with each other to gain the peoples' vote. Their competition has fomented an ideology and a set of expectations for each voter to the point where they are the only TWO choices.

And any given "politician" that has an L next to his or her name is likely to be dull and unengaging. I've met them before, and it is wholly disheartening when you are, yourself, a Libertarian. They are genuine and down-to-earth to a fault.

I'm not sure how Ron Paul got into the House, but the LP sure needs to know how and use his success as a template.

I believe it is nothing short of FACT that most of us are Libertarians at heart. The SOLE mission of the Libertarian Party today should be to make us all aware of that.

NIGHTWATCH
June 26, 2005, 10:25 AM
The Libertarian Party is doomed to fail because THEY ARE NOT PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS. It's that simple.Democratics and Republicans are PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS.

Republicans were NOT PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS just prior to the civil war. It was the civil war that actually put this new party on the map. It was a crisis that allowed the entrance of this party to power. Why not the LP?

Being a "professional politician" is the problem not the solution.

Brett Bellmore
June 26, 2005, 11:11 AM
Why not the LP? Already told you: The Ds and the Rs have made it illegal.

Not formally, of course, but as a practical matter.

pax
June 26, 2005, 12:02 PM
As for "throwing away votes", I'm not going to validate someone's incompetence and stupidity...
No, instead you'll continue to validate someone else's stupidity and evil by voting for the same dirty-words who keep bending us over.

But it's okay. Maybe this election cycle, it'll be different.

Dreck.

pax

Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves. -- Eric Hoffer

sm
June 26, 2005, 12:35 PM
If you keep on doing what you have always done- you will keep on getting what you always got.

For a long time now I have NOT thrown away MY vote. I voted MY convictions.

I can look anyone in the eye and say I voted the best I could to uphold Freedoms, fight Tryanny, and defend " against all enemies foreign and domestic".

History is full of folks that voted for someone. After that someone served -the facts of Tearing down Freedoms, being a tool of Tyranny, and whatever else- the numbers of people whom actually cast a vote for said person putting them in office is way different than those numbers of persons that will admit voting for said person.

To thine ownself be true.

Did you vote for whom you did/ do because your family always voted that Party? Pressured by a spouse, employer, union, or co- workers?. Wanted to be with the winning side, mob mentality ,or be in the "in crowd"?.

Did you NOT vote so you could change sides according to whatever makes you look at any given hour on any given day?

Or did you make your own decisions, for your own convictions, studied, researched, informed , to support your beliefs on the definitions of Freedoms, and Tyranny?

Dan from MI
June 26, 2005, 01:11 PM
The problem is that the top LP vote getting candidate in my state got 136,935 votes, most of which he got because his name is Scotty Boman(similar to former Red Wings coach). That's behind the Constitution Party(US Taxpayers in MI), let alone the Big Two. I'm Republican, but I voted for Scotty Boman as a protest vote since one of the GOP'ers for that office(education boards) was shady. Boman still didn't come close to winning.

I happen to agree with much of the Libertarian philosophy, although I do break with them on abortion(as does Ron Paul), immigration, and legalization of drugs(although the Drug War is a failure). That said, I don't agree with any party or person 100%.

I've never seen an LP candidate knock on doors or run a real campaign. The most I've seen was a few TV or radio ads by either Michael Badnarik or Harry Browne. Even Ross Perot with his billions only got 20% of the vote. Why should I give the LP a chance (outside of a protest vote) when they aren't running successful campaigns? What are they outside of a protest vote? They do not have a lot of acclompishments for 30 years of campaigning. I don't expect much difference from the Constitution Party.

I vote for the best candidate I can get, usually to stop the worst. Bush was the lesser of two evils, and I think we can survive Bush(McCain's another story). Kerry would have made Bill Klinton look like Reagan. I agree with Bush maybe 35-40% of the time. That's better than 0%. I just hope he appoints good judges.

The Republican Party is far from perfect, but it's IMO the best we got, and primaries are the best chance to get good people elected there. The best defenders of the 2nd amendment are republicans, including Ron Paul, Tom Coburn and John Hostettler. The judges who opposed the Eminent Domain ruling were GOP apointees. Renquist, O'Connor(who actually got one right), Scalia, and Thomas.

The Primaries are key. That is our best chance to make a difference, and it doesn't start at the presidential level. It starts at the local levels. The biggest mistake all of us make is concentrating on the feds. Most congresscritters were state reps or local officials at one time or another. The state and local offices are where we need to concentrate most of our time. Then the best ones are more electable as congressmen and have a better chance to win.

geekWithA.45
June 26, 2005, 01:29 PM
Given the steady decline of our freedoms, is there a chance now for the Libertarian Party?

NO.

Changes in the situation, even continued degeneration of liberty, is external to the LP, and has no effect on their viability as an alternative.

The LP remains an unviable alternative, for too many reasons to post here.

GlenJ
June 26, 2005, 01:53 PM
After what the GOP is doing to us civil service workers the Libertarian Party has a new voter here.

Jeff
June 26, 2005, 09:28 PM
Being a "professional politician" is the problem not the solution.

Maybe so, but that's still the reality.

Big Bad Wolf
June 27, 2005, 05:03 AM
Great discussion and right on time because this is something I am wrestling with.

After the passage of the Real ID Act I can honestly say that was the last straw with me supporting the Republicrats. The GOP nowadays are no better then the Dems, my eyes are finally open.

As for the Republicans being the "best and only option" even though they continually bend us over time and time again with liberty robbing bills ask yourself, if Kerry would have been elected what would be different? We were all dead set that he would have passed tons of anti-gun measures but much like under Bush the House has been the only reason we have not seen any anti-gun laws going anywhere and I suspect it would have been the same even with Kerry as President even if he fell back to being a gun grabber. The war? Listen to the debates, neither Bush or Kerry knew what to do with the war, we are stuck there with no signs of it ending anytime soon. The ever increasing bloated expanding Government? Bush's policy on this is an exact mirror of even the most liberal of Democrats..

Getting back to the topic at hand, does the 3rd parties have a chance yet? No.

In the case with the LP as noted here they fail to get grass roots laid on the state level. While they love to tout their 600+ elected offices they hold look at those offices. School Board Officials, Water Board Officials, etc... are not real offices and not any office of consequence. They really need to work on state level legislature seats to move up the chain rather than spend the bank on a worthless and ineffective Presidential Candidate that will have no chance. Work on single state, win some seats in that state and begin to implement your ideals and prove they work, work seriously on a Governor Chair after that then move to the next level which is Federal. Texas, NM, or even AZ would be a good start for this.

Speaking of failed Presidential bids.....

http://img218.echo.cx/img218/3293/michaelbadnarik7qf.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

If this is the best candidate you can find, I would seriously examine where your party is going. Dr. Harry Browne and Dr. Ron Paul were rather good candidates and just the people you need to lead the party but Badnarik? I have heard his speeches and he is a rather poor candidate because he is not well rounded. He is great at Constitution issues but absolutely sucks on any other issue. In this last election which saw the most voter turn out ever he failed to even get the amount of votes the Dr. Browne did previously in 2000. An epic swift kick in the butt that should have and I hope brings them back to reality about Presidential bids and questionable sanity candidates.

As for the LP platform, yes the drug legalization and open border issues are the fly in the ointment for many potential voters who would go LP if it weren't for those 2 points. This thread is a great example of that. While if you really examine the LP's platform and ideals concerning these issues it does make sense but the average voter does not see past the glib or lip service any candidate pays during speeches or the debates.

As for wasting your vote, I don't buy into that. The GOP and Dem elected officials sell us out at every turn then waive patriotic images of how they are the true freedom fighters in politics and stand by the oath they take when inaugurated, in other words total and complete hogwash. So long as you vote for these candidates because of the (R) or (D) rather than who is actually better for the job, that is wasting your vote. When you place a vote for the lesser of 2 evils rather than throwing your support to someone who fights for what you believe, that is wasting your vote. When you set your ideals and belief's on how this country should be run aside for more of the same, that is wasting your vote.

The biggest point to 3rd parties is not to win a miracle but rather keep the big 2 in check. If the big parties do not see a decline in their voting base and increase of votes going to the 3rd parties they will never be inclined to change their policies and platform to help bring back the defection vote, it will just be more of the same and we all know how that is going.

So in closing I support the Libertarians even though they have some work to do to even become a thorn in the side of the GOP but it is my hope that if the Libertarians continue to tread water in politics and not progress further that at the very least they can bring the GOP back to the Conservative side of politics, even if it is just a small measure of return because anything is better than the RINO's and neo-cons we have now.

cajunboy2k
June 27, 2005, 08:28 AM
I voted Republican again this year because I didn't like Kerry, and the LP did not have a strong candidate. I like most of what the LP stand for, but the border and drug issues are the kickers. But, I think that if a LP won the POTUS, there would be enough votes in Congress to offset those two positions.
I need to do somemore reading into the LP before I make up my mind for sure. I consider myself an independent due to the fact that not one party has all the answers for the future of this country, and following them blindly just because they are DEM or REP is not the smartest thing to do.

1911 guy
June 27, 2005, 08:38 AM
I'm still a little undecided about the third party thing. On one hand I do agree with what a lot of the independants have been saying. On the other, I'm still stuck in what I know to be a flawed argument about splitting the "conservative" vote. I say conservative in quotes because most of us know there is only one agenda in D.C., just two paths to the same end.
As for borders and racism, the two are NOT mutual. Legal immigration is a wonderful thing, we're all here, in one way or another, because of it. Illegal is a whole 'nother animal. To quote Michael Savage: Borders, Language, Culture. Diversity is great, I'm teaching my wife and son to speak a little German, but we MUST have common ground as a society.

Derek Zeanah
June 27, 2005, 08:56 AM
I guess I just don't get the main argument here. To me, it can be rephrased like this: "maintaining funding for the drug war and the illusion that we're keeping our borders 'closed' is more important than everything else on the Libertarian ticket, so I'm gonna vote for more of the same please."

That just doesn't make any sense. But then, a lot of what passes for "conservative thought" doesn't make much sense to me either.

I'd ask the posters who see the drug and immigration platforms the following questions: Without getting into the whole "drugs are bad" argument, would you argue that our current drug war has done a lot to keep "bad" drugs out of the country? Would you say that the concrete results we've seen from the drug war (decrease in cost over time, greater availability, "harder" drugs that are easier to smuggle but result in worse results for users, militarization of the police, and all the assaults on the bill of rights) are worth their cost?
Would you say that our current immigration/border policy is effective? Do you think more of the same is smart, or do you think there are alternatives that should be considered? DO you think this part of the Libertarian position on immigration is an improvement over the status quo: we recognize that the right to enter the United States does not include the right to economic entitlements such as welfare. The freedom to immigrate is a freedom of opportunity, not a guarantee of a handout.
If I could promise you an administration that would actively work to eliminate prohibitions on firearm ownership (ie remove that offensive language from our laws, not just hold fast against new encroachments), greatly reduce taxes if not completely eliminating the income tax over time, eliminate those chunks of the federal government that have no constitutional charter, keep us to a non-interventionist foreign policy that stops us from pissing the rest of the world off (remember General Washington's advice regarding foreign entanglements!), end welfare and encourage contributions to charity, migrate from current social security to a private sustainable system over time, and in general work to get the beast that is federal government back into its constitutional cage, would you really turn that offer down if they were going to allow more open immigration and let people grow/buy/smoke whatever they want?You and I certainly are far apart on the issue of liberty. :(

Refirignis
June 27, 2005, 08:59 AM
Had the bastards controlling the 2004 election with an iron fist actually let the Libertarian Party candidate debate with Bush and Kerry, or simply given him equal attention, for that matter, I wonder at how much of a difference would have been made. :rolleyes: The press ignoring the 3rd parties does not help whatsoever. :banghead:

To everyone that complains about the two Libertarian issues: do you agree with every single issue the Republicans have?

fletcher
June 27, 2005, 11:18 AM
I think there's a chance. Quite a few people, including myself, have just had it with the two main parties now. After I get some stamps, I'm going to mail off a form to change my party affiliation to Libertarian in NC. I'll definitely encourage everyone I know to vote Libertarian next election, at federal, state, and local levels.

hoppinglark
June 27, 2005, 11:30 AM
let's not forget that legalizing drugs would also mean, an increase in hemp oil production which can be used to "water-down" diesel in the same way ethanol is used with gas.

maybe the Private Property issue mixed with the cost of oil will convince some to vote Libertarian!

but not likely...

ThreadKiller
June 27, 2005, 11:42 AM
Since all politics are local, the LP must begin to build on a local political level. They cannot expect to be taken seriously if they only emerge once every 4 years with an eye on the White House.

Both major political parties stink. The Dems just stink more at this point in time.

Tim

dpesec
June 27, 2005, 12:47 PM
Yes, I'm a registered republican, but I'm closer to the libertian. I'm waiting for them to field somebody with a chance to win.
There needs to be more PR, otherwise by voting for then is a vote for the Spendocrats. Why, because, for the most part they vote like sheep. I'm not waying all of them, but many do.

fletcher
June 27, 2005, 12:48 PM
let's not forget that legalizing drugs would also mean, an increase in hemp oil production which can be used to "water-down" diesel in the same way ethanol is used with gas.


Diesel engines can also run directly on plant oils (as Dr. Rudolf Diesel intended) - little known fact :p

DRZinn
June 27, 2005, 06:13 PM
Why should I give the LP a chance (outside of a protest vote) when they aren't running successful campaignsMaybe because you agree with them? Why should you give a damn what their campaign is like if you agree with their policies? A "successful canpaign" is nothing but propaganda, designed to persuade the people who are too dumb to think through the issue on their own. Why should that AT ALL be a factor in your decision?

Look, I agree that they're pretty inept as politicians, and I too wish they would concentrate on the lower levels of government and build grass-roots support rather than wasing their efforts on the presidency. But knowing what kind of things the good politicians do to get elected and re-elected, give me a software writer any day of the week, as long as he knows that the government is more often the problem than the solution and is willing to legislate accordingly.

After what the GOP is doing to us civil service workers the Libertarian Party has a new voter here.Welcome!

After the passage of the Real ID Act I can honestly say that was the last straw with me supporting the Republicrats. The GOP nowadays are no better then the Dems, my eyes are finally open.Welcome!

After I get some stamps, I'm going to mail off a form to change my party affiliation to Libertarian in NC. I'll definitely encourage everyone I know to vote Libertarian next election, at federal, state, and local levels.Welcome!

Father Knows Best
June 27, 2005, 06:21 PM
I voted Libertarian in the last national election. That's because I live in Tennessee, which was a lock for Bush. I voted Libertarian to express support for the LP party's positions on issues like gun control, and to express discontent with the Repubs. I would never vote LP if the election was close where I lived, because I don't think the Libs have a chance of winning and even a bad Republican is better than any Democrat.

I find myself far more in agreement with the Libertarian platform than the Dems or Repubs. I'm not an anarchist, however. I do believe that government is a necessary evil. Unfortunately, I think the Libertarian Party has a real problem, in that it seems to be dominated by folks who are so extreme that they might as well be anarchists. With some of the nutso stuff they spout off, they have no chance of ever becoming more than a punch line.

BeLikeTrey
June 28, 2005, 09:38 AM
Good point

I agree, that's why here in SC I will not longer give my vote to either of the TWO MAIN parties anymore. Not much of a chance for Dem's here in the POTUS votes. I too agree that the libertarian and Other third parties should get a common bond and rally around a good candidate. I wonder, could there be somone here that would be good? I hear alot of intelligent statements from alot of people as well as real hard work by some the likes of Jim March ETC.

Mr. James
June 28, 2005, 01:54 PM
Now darnit, Derek,

Don't go confusing me with logic.

For the record, I voted Constitution Party last election ... but I'd certainly give the LP a look. Voted LP over that creature John Warner in his last Senate go-round, but of course, Warner is one of the anointed elite.

On the other hand, I'm active in the campaign of a small "l" libertarian Republican running for the House of Delegates here in Virginia. Young turk name of Chris Craddock, who just knocked off a RINO incumbent in Fairfax County.

R.H. Lee
June 28, 2005, 02:01 PM
I'll certainly reconsider, as I won't vote for a Democratic and will never never voter Republican again after 30 years of doing so and having NOTHING to show for it-other than a slow erosion of liberties over that time.

Instead, I'll find the best candidate from the most freedom loving party and vote for him/her.

I will never never buy into 'the most important election in our lifetime' :barf: crap again. If the Marxist/Leninist Democrats take over, so be it. I will no longer compromise by voting Republican. The two card monte game is over, as far as I'm concerned. No more 'death by a thousand cuts' inflicted by Republicans for me.

roo_ster
June 28, 2005, 02:36 PM
A "successful canpaign" is nothing but propaganda, designed to persuade the people who are too dumb to think through the issue on their own.

Uh, no. Those who run a "sucessful campaign" get to hold the reins of power and set the agenda. That is power, not propaganda. There is a difference.

There are some Republicans worth supporting, if you have small "l" libertarian views. Ron Paul has been mentioned & I would throw Pete Session's name into the hat. Pete is not straight down the line in accord with the LP, but neither am I. He's close enough, in this imperfect world.

I think that someone who is ACTIVE in local Republican politics can have more effect on the outcomes than someone involved at any level in the LP. Of course, that means getting your hands dirty in the everyday give & take of politics and not just whining about it on a message board...

I'd rather the LP was an effective tool for change, but it is not. Heck, I'd settle for it being one of those third parties that come around every few decades to scare the bejeezus outta one of the two main parties and cause a main party to adopt most/all its platform. The LP doesn't even rate as a third party (if by "third," we mean "third largest") anymore.

FWIW:
I voted big "L" for pres in 1992, 1996, and 2000. I voted big "L" for lesser offices in 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004 when they ran and I determined they weren't nutbars. The last libertarian presidential candidate convinced me the LP is on a road to nowhere.

Desertdog
June 28, 2005, 03:19 PM
I will vote for the LP candidates the day that they run as a Republican or Democrat.

Ron Paul is an excellent example of what the LP candidate can accomplish running as a Republican party candidate.

Question for LPers; Is there a winning national candidate in your party other than Ron Paul?

Big Bad Wolf
June 28, 2005, 03:35 PM
I think that someone who is ACTIVE in local Republican politics can have more effect on the outcomes than someone involved at any level in the LP. Of course, that means getting your hands dirty in the everyday give & take of politics and not just whining about it on a message board...

I assume you are referring to "Working within the party to effect change"?

That in itself is as much for a hope of a miracle then voting for an LP Presidential candidate. True Conservatives voices have been lost in the shuffle of all the Neo-Conservatives and RINO's and that voice that has already been eclipsed is getting even smaller because real Conservatives are becoming a dying breed in the GOP. Neo-Conservatives has no interest in listing to the people who put them into power, nor representing old fashioned basic Conservative ideals that the average Republican voter put them where they are to represent. It's really not unlike being a Democrat nowadays and trying to effect change of them dropping the Liberal agenda.

Here is a great article by Dr. Ron Paul describing Neo-Conservatism, Ladies and Gentlemen I give you Neo-Conned!! (http://http://www.bigeye.com/neoconned.htm)

Big Bad Wolf
June 28, 2005, 03:45 PM
I will vote for the LP candidates the day that they run as a Republican or Democrat.

Ron Paul is an excellent example of what the LP candidate can accomplish running as a Republican party candidate.

Question for LPers; Is there a winning national candidate in your party other than Ron Paul?

Ron Paul made it back in to his seat during a period before Neo-Conservatism grabbed the reigns of power in the GOP. I believe if an LP candidate tried the same method Dr. Paul did to get in to the party he would be cut off by the powers that be because they want "yes" men now, not outspoken freedom fighters.

Derby FALs
June 28, 2005, 03:51 PM
Good ol' Dr. No...

antarti
June 28, 2005, 04:39 PM
After the scathing letters I sent, demanding impeachment/reversal of the recent case or my RNC and voter cards go bye-bye, I have been doing lots of similar thinking.

Yes, I voted Perot both times he ran, and for the Republican otherwise. What a waste... Reagan, and two Bushes... 20 years between them, and government has just gotten more expansive, more expensive, and more odious. No use mentioning what happened the other 8 years with Klinton...

Meet the new King George II, same as the old King George III...

I've always sympathized with the LP and CP... and am cutting up the RNC card, and mailing in the R voter card. I will likely sign up as LP.

What mystifies me is that since the LP, Liberty, Reform, Constitution Party, etc. share 80% of their platform, why not unite and do the 80% they agree on? This would be the perfect time.

Voting my conscience today, P.P.R (post property rights), would mean signing up for one of the Southern Parties, and supporting outright secession. I may just do that since the Union just isn't worth a damn these days...

I might as well enjoy big pig BBQ's, mint juleps, and militia training with lots of other "happy and harmless looking, but well armed, older fat guys" like myself while waiting for the balloon to go up. There is something there I don't agree with though: I don't look good in pleated Grey pants and cap, but I'll make that sacrifice. That's pretty much a cause I can sink my teeth into.

My party affiliation (and donation habits) are changing... it's just a matter of "where to".

RealGun
June 28, 2005, 04:57 PM
A bunch of folks with a common cause agreeing to move to the same State is something I take more seriously than I used to. I think the most powerful protest is a serious threat of secession or at least a State not rolling over every time its rights are ignored, especially by its own Senators, drunk with federal power.

It is difficult to amass political force from across the country, but a State focus may actually be more doable than some might suppose. If nothing else, they just have to all retire to the same place.

GunGoBoom
June 28, 2005, 05:18 PM
Given the steady decline of our freedoms, is there a chance now for the Libertarian Party?

No, because that party is far too whacky on their view of the extremely limited view of gov't. Gov't should be much, much, much smaller. But the LPs want to make the gov't much, much, much, much, much, much smaller - so small that market externalities are not in any way controlled, in particular, damage to our enviroment/mother earth from corporate polluters, to name a salient example of an unintended result of believing that gov't is ONLY for national defense, roads, schools & such.

But, given the steady decline of our freedoms, there IS, or at least should be, a chance for a party with really strong, logical views such as the Constitution Party! http://www.constitutionparty.com/

It is difficult to amass political force from across the country, but a State focus may actually be more doable than some might suppose. If nothing else, they just have to all retire to the same place.

Well, Texas is a large chunk of real estate, has mild winters, good hunting, and is not completely surrounded, having one long border not adjacent to the enemy in the event of secession. There are those down there who already maintain that they are the "Republic of Texas", and independent of the fedgov - they'd be overjoyed if we all joined them...food for thought. Florida is even more defensible, as if that matters, as any true mil action would result in being steamrolled in a few days - say that reminds me of something I read somewhere about a l'il conflict round about 1863 in which secession did not work out well.

Eskimo Jim
June 28, 2005, 05:28 PM
I'd vote for a Libertarian under a couple of conditions. they'd have to stop trying to open the borders wide open, stop trying to legalize every type of intoxicating drug (ie crack cocaine, heroin etc) and several other policies.

In general they go too far.

They should focus on town/city and state legislatures and work their way up to national level elections.

Until they win some state legislatures and governorships, then they'll remain an 'also ran'.

-Jim

PS given that, I do find the Libertarian party's Free State PRoject very interesting.

Clean97GTI
June 28, 2005, 06:02 PM
The Constitution Party is kind of a strange choice given the love of liberty that most of us here have.

Just read the Sanctity of Life platform on their website. "The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God's image."

this is very disconcerting to me as a staunch atheist and would lead me to oppose such a party who is in direct opposition to the 1st amendment.

I am, a registered Libertarian who knows that the best place to keep religion is OUT of the government.

White Horseradish
June 28, 2005, 06:09 PM
The Constitution Party is a misnomer. Bible Party is more like it. Their views are only logical if you are a certain kind of Christian.

DRZinn
June 28, 2005, 09:27 PM
Originally Posted by DocZinn
A "successful campaign" is nothing but propaganda, designed to persuade the people who are too dumb to think through the issue on their own.


Uh, no. Those who run a "sucessful campaign" get to hold the reins of power and set the agenda. That is power, not propaganda. There is a difference.The power, obviously, is the goal. The campaign is the method of achieving that goal. This requires persuading people to vote for you. This is done through propaganda, since most people are either too dumb or too lazy to work through the issues themselves.

I've always sympathized with the LP and CP... and am cutting up the RNC card, and mailing in the R voter card. I will likely sign up as LP.Welcome!

Alex45ACP
June 28, 2005, 09:35 PM
We already have open immigration anyway.

Just wanted to make sure no one missed that.

Alex45ACP
June 28, 2005, 09:44 PM
Libertarians do not want to leave the borders "wide open". Badnarik on immigration and border security:

Coupled with open, easy immigration for the peaceful, I advocate a vigorous national defense against our enemies. Terrorists and criminals who attempt to enter the US via a Customs and Immigration station should be denied entry and, where applicable, arrested or extradited. Terrorists and criminals who attempt to enter the US via other points along its 95,000 miles of border and coastline should be treated as what they are: invaders against whom our armed forces must respond. There are obvious exceptions Cuban and Haitian "boat refugees" who don't have much control over where they make landfall, for example but they are exceptions, not the rule.

As a Libertarian, I reject a conception of national defense that keeps American troops overseas, meddling in the affairs of other nations. Instead, I advocate a national defense which, sans any attack which might require retaliation elsewhere, focuses on the logical area: the nation's borders. As president, I would work to eliminate the Border Patrol and treat border issues as what they are: defense issues coming under the mission and scope of the armed forces. In an age where the equivalent of a large invasion force can be packed into a suitcase-sized box containing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, no lesser response will do.

http://www.badnarik.org/plans_immigration.php

Libertarians want to use our military to protect our borders. Immigration and border security are two different issues. Most Libertarians want to allow immigration but have heavy border security. Right now, our defenses consist of:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v646/6655321/Monument.jpg

This is unacceptable.

Lone_Gunman
June 28, 2005, 09:46 PM
Badnarik may be an un-bathed fruitcake, but his border policy sounds good to me.

Rebar
June 28, 2005, 10:35 PM
Coupled with open, easy immigration for the peaceful
If that sounds good to you, then you haven't been paying attention.

peacefuljeffrey
June 28, 2005, 11:37 PM
The decline of our rights is happening right alongside two things:
- a push by the governmental authorities to take those rights away
- a complete apathy, combined with lack of education and also with general ignorance, on the part of the public

Kids are growing up without being educated on why our individual rights are important. They vote in polls that say that the 1st Amendment gives us too much freedom and that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it says.

People are quoted in news articles saying ignorant stuff like, "If you're innocent and haven't broken the law, what do you have to fear" from various police and government intrusions. It actually makes sense to them that if you are not a lawbreaker, you should not mind the government constantly watching you as though you are a criminal.

These are not people who even care about preserving their own rights, much less those of everyone in the society.

It looks to me as though the battle may already be lost.

That doesn't mean I won't go down fighting. I just think that there are fewer and fewer people every day who even realize it makes SENSE to be on our side in this thing. :( They don't even see anything wrong!

-Jeffrey

Alfadog
June 29, 2005, 12:33 AM
This is a great thread. I registered Libertarian as of this spring after being a dedicated Republican for practically all of my adult life. Hell, my son's middle name is Reagan!

I had been concerned about the neo-con hijacking of the Republican party for quite a while. The Republican primary for the Florida senate seat last year was a big eye-opener. The national Republican party got behind neo-con party hack Mel Martinez, who ran a very sleazy campaign and beat Bill McCollum, a conservative Republican with an outstanding record in the House. Despite my concerns, I voted for both Bush and Martinez. The straw that broke this camel's back was the Terry Schiavo matter and the idiotic actions and comments made by George Bush, Mel Martinez, and Jeb Bush.

As to whether a third party can succeed, we won't know until we try. Frankly, I think trying to take control of the Republican party from the neo-cons or take control of the Democratic party from the Bolsheviks would be more difficulty than building a successful third party (case in point is the election of Martinez). There are a lot more pro-third party posts in this thread than any I remember seeing on the internet before. This gives me hope!

By the way, many thanks to whoever referenced the "NEO-CONNED" article (speech?) by Ron Paul above. The link didn't work but I Googled it. Let's see if this works:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

rock jock
June 29, 2005, 12:42 AM
is there a chance now for the Libertarian Party?
No

DRZinn
June 29, 2005, 01:15 AM
I registered Libertarian as of this spring after being a dedicated Republican for practically all of my adult life.Welcome!

wdlsguy
June 29, 2005, 01:18 PM
Libertarians do not want to leave the borders "wide open".

Badnarik appears to be out of step with his own party on immigration:

"The Libertarian Party has long recognized the importance of allowing free and open immigration, understanding that this leads to a growing and more prosperous America. We condemn the xenophobic immigrant bashing that would build a wall around the United States. At the same time, we recognize that the right to enter the United States does not include the right to economic entitlements such as welfare. The freedom to immigrate is a freedom of opportunity, not a guarantee of a handout."

http://www.lp.org/issues/immigration.shtml

Alfadog
June 29, 2005, 02:14 PM
Thanks Doc! It's refreshing not to be carrying around the Republican baggage any more!

Aahzz
June 29, 2005, 03:33 PM
Coming in late....haven't read the entire thread....but...

I am a lifelong Republican who, from now on, will vote Libertarian. Schiavo was the last straw for me. I happily voted for Bush the first time, reluctantly the second time, but will never again vote Republican - I feel badly betrayed by the current party agenda - particularly the pandering to the evangelicals.

RealGun
June 29, 2005, 04:23 PM
I have no plan to change parties because I want to associate with a party that has some influence, imperfect though that may be as a fit to my issues. There are Republicans who say, hey, wait a minute; as evidenced by the inability to hold the GOP caucus together in the Senate.

Of the two major parties, which one is the better fit to libertarian ideals? If ones philosopy is uncompromising, then a separate party may be appropriate and one can then only hope that there will be enough others to make a third party movement viable.

Even the Republican Liberty Caucus is ineffective because of an unwillingness to compromise.

I think an effort to influence the GOP is the way to actually make a difference and vote in a way that matters.

The current fight is to set aside all the religious stuff and get back to real government issues. The key to that is picking federal court judges for the right reasons, accepting that Roe v Wade is a done deal unless fairly revisited on purely constitutional grounds.

rock jock
June 29, 2005, 04:30 PM
The current fight is to set aside all the religious stuff and get back to real government issues. The key to that is picking federal court judges for the right reasons, accepting that Roe v Wade is a done deal unless fairly revisited on purely constitutional grounds.
I hear cries all the time from folks wantng the GOP to abandon the "religious issues." Perhaps they don't realize that evangelical Christians are the most vocal and loyal contigent of the Republican Party. Abandoning them would be like asking the Libertarian Party to abandon the Tinfoil Hat Brigade.

Alfadog
June 29, 2005, 05:06 PM
I have no plan to change parties because I want to associate with a party that has some influence, imperfect though that may be as a fit to my issues. There are Republicans who say, hey, wait a minute; as evidenced by the inability to hold the GOP caucus together in the Senate.

Of the two major parties, which one is the better fit to libertarian ideals?

The inability to hold the GOP together in the Senate has nothing at all to do with the influence of any libertarian element of the party. It has everything to do with the liberal Rockefeller Republican RINOs like Voinovich and Chafee and media whore McCain. McCain and the RINOs are as far from libertarians as the neo-cons and extreme religous right factions (just in the other direction).

In answer to your question, I may be more likely to agree with the Republicans than the Democrats, but I find little difference on many issues that are important to me.

I think an effort to influence the GOP is the way to actually make a difference and vote in a way that matters.

And how exactly would we do that? The neo-cons and the religous right totally dominate the Republican party. Since the mid-90s, the Republican leadership hasn't even given the "smaller government" faction the time of day.

RealGun
June 29, 2005, 06:15 PM
The inability to hold the GOP together in the Senate has nothing at all to do with the influence of any libertarian element of the party. - alfadog

It certainly does. It stops the nuclear option and the attempt to slam dunk the confirmations of judges favored by the religious right. Those issues are extraconstitutional, so I would think libs would care very much about it.

Of course, none of it is an exact match to an LP doctrine, so maybe it doesn't compute for those who think pragmatism is a dirty word, antithetical to their politics but inherent in everyone elses.

DRZinn
June 30, 2005, 11:51 AM
I am a lifelong Republican who, from now on, will vote Libertarian.Welcome!

rhubarb
June 30, 2005, 11:57 AM
Abandoning them would be like asking the Libertarian Party to abandon the Tinfoil Hat Brigade.

My hearty laugh of the day. :)

mmike87
June 30, 2005, 12:43 PM
Neither the Republican or Democrats represent the views of the majority of Americans.

Both parties exist for the sole purpose of maintaining that status quo two party system.

Either party if OK with the other being in power in lieu of ANY third party. They are like siblings - they can beat up on each other all they want but in the end will do anything to protect eachother from outsiders.

Gordon Fink
June 30, 2005, 05:35 PM
The issues of drug decriminalization and open immigration are merely excuses people use to continue voting Republican or Democrat. Since some 70 to 80 percent of Americans (and people in general) are irrational by definition, why should we expect anything different?

American liberty is already doomed to a slow extinction. Barring another revolution led by another libertarian elite, the United States will continue to cycle between the petty fascism of the Republicans and the casual socialism of the Democrats. Perhaps one will eventually consume the other, and then weíll get to try some real tyranny.

The nay-sayers are sure right about one thing. If you donít vote for a Libertarian, a Libertarian wonít be elected.

Who really wants freedom? Itís much too scary Ö

~G. Fink

Jeff
June 30, 2005, 06:50 PM
Neither the Republican or Democrats represent the views of the majority of Americans. Both parties exist for the sole purpose of maintaining that status quo two party system. Either party if OK with the other being in power in lieu of ANY third party. They are like siblings - they can beat up on each other all they want but in the end will do anything to protect eachother from outsiders.


Sounds about right. And to take it one step further, I consider modern Republicans and modern Democrats to be the exact same party; they literally are one entity. It's just one wing represents this general group of people, and the other represents this general group of people, with both groups espousing generally moderate ideologies.

What real difference is there between Dubya and Kerry? NONE.

BHPshooter
June 30, 2005, 08:03 PM
Will You Now Reconsider?

Well, Ty, you know that I already vote Libertarian when I can ;) , but I do think this situation will wake a lot of people up. If it hasn't yet, people like you and I raising awareness CAN.

Wes

NIGHTWATCH
July 1, 2005, 06:12 PM
You said it buddy ;)

Waitone
July 2, 2005, 04:45 PM
If libertarian (small L) principals are to have any effect in the world of politics, they are going to need a farm team to develop the talent necessary to run the big stuff. Many would say ideological purity is what is needed. I disagree. There exists this thingy call governance. How will a party implement their ideological principals?

Let's just wave our hands as say Libertarian (Big L) candidate won the big house. He or she sits in the Oval Office ready to do the governance thingy. Who is called to head up DoD, DoJ, State, EPA, ad nauseum. A SCOTUS lawyer croaks; who will the Pres nominate? Who on the Judiciary committee in the House of Lords will carry the Pres' water on the nomination? Who run the treasury. Who gets to work the intelligence apparatus? Military? Who will be slotted to JCS?

Let's also say the Libertarian President says "EPA? We donn need no steenkin' EPA" No need to appoint a head. Who in congress will he call to start the fireworks?

My point is simpleminded. Libertarians (big L or little L) are not ready for the majors. They have no bench of talent to draw from when their big shot at the majors comes. These guys are like the batter who goes to the plate and swings for the stands at every pitch coming his way. His strike out rate is high. He's not happy with a high percentage bunt. He wants it all or none of it. Libertarians would be well advise to pull back and dry their powder. Get some big local victories Go into an election talking about what they DID as opposed to what the WILL DO. Forget running major candidates and concentrate on state and local victories. After accumulating a few accomplishments, come back and try a national run. :scrutiny:

280PLUS
July 2, 2005, 10:07 PM
People seem to forget that the BIGGEST problem any party other than the Dems and Reps face is FINANCES. Why don't we see the big media campaigns put on by the two parties being similarly used by the Libertarians? THEY CAN"T AFFORD IT! The thing that gets people elected in this country is money. In most cases if you ain't got money your face ain't all over the media and if your face ain't all over the media, you ain't getting elected. That comes straight from PoliSci 101 folks. Why was Ross Perot able to even make a stab being a third party candidate in the election he ran in? He had deep enough pockets of his own to pay the media to plaster his face all over the place. Give the Libertarians the same amount of election money as the other two parties and they might stand a chance of gaining some ground.

Rebar
July 2, 2005, 11:16 PM
Why don't we see the big media campaigns put on by the two parties being similarly used by the Libertarians? THEY CAN"T AFFORD IT!
With what they waste every four years on their rediculous doomed presidential race, they could get a couple dozen state reps and senators elected.

The Rabbi
July 2, 2005, 11:23 PM
Membership in the Libertarian Party, much less running as a candidate, is a prima facie evidence for being a nut job. That doesnt make every member or candidate one, but they'd have to prove it to me first.

The Libertarian Party has no chance of succeeding. Zero. If they were smart they would take a leaf from the Grangers. A lot of political reform occurred because a small party ended up putting pressure on the bigger parties to adopt their agenda.

DRZinn
July 3, 2005, 12:18 AM
My point is simpleminded. Libertarians (big L or little L) are not ready for the majors. They have no bench of talent to draw from when their big shot at the majors comes. These guys are like the batter who goes to the plate and swings for the stands at every pitch coming his way. His strike out rate is high. He's not happy with a high percentage bunt. He wants it all or not of it. Libertarians would be well advise to pull back and dry their powder. Get some big local victories Go into an election talking about what they DID as opposed to what the WILL DO. Forget running major candidates and concentrate on state and local victories. After accumulating a few accomplishments, come back and try a national run.Sad but true.

280PLUS
July 3, 2005, 05:49 AM
With what they waste every four years on their rediculous doomed presidential race, they could get a couple dozen state reps and senators elected. Excellent point.

MY point is I feel the national elections are unfairly biased to those that have the cash or the supporters, with their OWN agendas in mind, to throw them this cash. I say if you really want to get fair elections going give every party the same amount of money for election campaigning. No more, no less. In other words level the playing field and eliminate those private sector folks who push cash toward those who run for office in order to gain an elected official that will be owing them sympathy toward their particular desires. Hon\estly, through the last election not once did I see any advertisement for any Libertarian for President nor do I know who the candidate was. I voted for Mr. Bush because, although I may not have agreed with all of his platform I still felt he was a better man for the job than Kerry and that was mainly based on the kind of campaign Kerry ran. Dirty and mudslinging IMHO. I gave the Republicans a lot of credit for sticking to the issues and not running a similar counter campaign. I did not consider voting Libertarian because they showed me nothing throughout the campaign. Nothing.

As always, I remain a staunchly independent voter and love to remind my legislators of that fact when I contact them. Not knowing whether my vote is in their bag or not appears to raise their eyebrows. Which is not an undesirable thing IMHO

Rebar
July 3, 2005, 11:29 AM
MY point is I feel the national elections are unfairly biased to those that have the cash or the supporters,
Well, yes, but it's up to the party to raise money and gain supporters, and in this the libertarians have failed miserably. And I don't think it's unfair at all, it's called competition in the marketplace of ideas. You have to have a good idea, and present it well. The libertarian philosophy has a lot of appeal, but they've dropped the ball on presentation and fundimentals. No one is to blame except the nitwits running the party.
I say if you really want to get fair elections going give every party the same amount of money for election campaigning.
And where's this money going to come from? Taxpayers of course, and no real libertarian would touch that money, it goes against everything they stand for. And why should the taxpayers have to subsidize losers? It's a bad idea.
Honestly, through the last election not once did I see any advertisement for any Libertarian for President nor do I know who the candidate was.
That's because the libertarian party is, as I stated before, incompetent. Rather than build up a local base, farm their talent, then run someone with some name recognition and talent, they pick the looniest guy at the convention and run him for president. It's crazy, they do everything possible to fail, then complain and blame everyone else when they do.
I did not consider voting Libertarian because they showed me nothing throughout the campaign. Nothing.
You made the right choice. Voting is a serious thing, you should vote for serious people, the libertarians have well proven that they're not serious.

Wasting time, money, effort, and votes on doomed libertarian party candidates will not make any difference whatsoever, except to help the extreme left-wing democrats get into power.

We are all much better off supporting republicans with libertarian leanings, they have at least a chance. Like Ron Paul. And not just for national office, the time to support them is at the local and state level. Get active locally, support liberty-minded republicans, run them for state offices, that is where we can all make a difference! Tomorrow's presidents and senators come from today's state offices, it might take awhile, but it can happen. Voting libertarian will not make anything happen.

Alfadog
July 3, 2005, 11:52 AM
I agree that the Libertarian party's strategy (or lack thereof) has failed thus far. Obviously, the party need to run effective campaigns for state legislature seats and the U.S. House of Representatives and WIN SOME SEATS before they are ready to play in the big leagues. As we sit here today, I don't think the Libertarian party has the support base or funding to run an effective statewide campaign (Governor or U.S. House of Lords... I mean, Senate)--maybe in some other states but certainly not here in Florida.

We are all much better off supporting republicans with libertarian leanings, they have at least a chance. Like Ron Paul. And not just for national office, the time to support them is at the local and state level. Get active locally, support liberty-minded republicans, run them for state offices, that is where we can all make a difference! Tomorrow's presidents and senators come from today's state offices, it might take awhile, but it can happen. Voting libertarian will not make anything happen.

I don't agree with this but I don't entirely disagree either. I don't mean to be argumentative, but who are the "Republicans with libertarian leanings?" Besides Ron Paul and the few members of the Liberty Caucus, I can't name a single one. The neo-cons and religous right seem to have run most of the libertarian-leaning people out of the Republican party.

I live in very heavily Republican districts for the state house, state senate, and U.S. House. There is very little chance any Demonrat wouuld win a seat in these districts. I therefore see no downside in voting Libertarian in these races (and I did in the last election, even before I changed parties).

I think the only way to influence the Republican party at this point is to vote Libertarian. For decades, the Republican party has sold itself as the party of fiscal responsibility and limited government. Now that they have the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress, they have increased government spending and the size of government dramatically. They are spending our money like drunken sailors on shore leave. They have showed that their idea of strict interpretation of the constitution becomes very flexible when they want to give the government more power over our lives (i.e., Patriot Act, Terri Schiavo, etc.)

The Republicans think they can get away with this because the only alternative available to the voters is the Democratic party--which simply is not an alternative for any liberty-minded voter. If the Libertarian party is seen as an alternative--viable or not--the Republicans will have to take notice.

Waitone
July 3, 2005, 12:28 PM
I don't agree with this but I don't entirely disagree either. I don't mean to be argumentative, but who are the "Republicans with libertarian leanings?" Besides Ron Paul and the few members of the Liberty Caucus, I can't name a single one. The neo-cons and religous right seem to have run most of the libertarian-leaning people out of the Republican party. Two come to mind. Sen. Tom Coburn R-OK and Gov. Mark Sanford, R-SC. Both were members of the class of '94. Both refused to go native like Dick Armey did after gaining power in the congress.

Seems we now have a new boogie-man we need to add to the list. In addition to the evil Neo-cons we must add "the Religious Right." :scrutiny:

Rebar
July 3, 2005, 12:37 PM
I don't mean to be argumentative, but who are the "Republicans with libertarian leanings?" Besides Ron Paul and the few members of the Liberty Caucus, I can't name a single one. The neo-cons and religous right seem to have run most of the libertarian-leaning people out of the Republican party.
The neo-cons and the religous right people are out supporting and running republican candidates, while the libertarian people are supporting a failed do-nothing party. See the problem? The libertarian people haven't been "run out", they were drawn away by the false promises of a incompetent party. There is no reason in the world why libertarians cannot come back to the republican party and move it towards a more small-government/libertarian direction.

And too many folks only look at the national political scene, when it's too late to have much influence. You have to look at LOCAL politics, at the state and city level, support liberty-minded republicans, and get them elected. Grass roots is how you make changes, it takes time and effort, but it can and will work if the effort is made.

One thing for sure - keep voting libertarian and nothing will change.

280PLUS
July 3, 2005, 12:51 PM
And where's this money going to come from? Taxpayers of course,

I was thinking about this. Taxpayer money yes but in addition to that a national fund to which any corporation may donate instead of to any particular party and with this donation the corporation has the chance to include with it a statement of what it's particular needs and desires from the Gov't would be. This money would then be doled out to any viable political parties with close tabs on where it goes to avoid fruadulent parties from simply declaring themselves a political party to tap the till. If the monies are misused by any particular organization them the till dries up for them. The whichever candidate is chosen by the population is made aware of things like, "IBM donated $1,000,000 to the national election fund and it has a desire to see this, this and this addressed by the US Gov't", to which the now elected official weighs and reacts accordingly. That way, everybody's agenda is on the table, nothing hidden.

Just an idle mind thinking out loud here...

:what: :eek:

:D

RealGun
July 3, 2005, 01:02 PM
The secular conservatives of the GOP are still out there, I think. They have not been driven off except to the extent of some going third party. "Who are they going to vote for? The Democrat?"

Being a full blown libertarian is a big jump though, if seriously considering the whole platform. I would need something more pragmatic and would want them to be moderate enough to attract enough votes to get attention and mean something.

As a secular centrist, constitutionally conservative, there is no other party platform that speaks to me. My biggest mission is to keep Democrats from winning elections and keeping hard right, religious people from taking over the GOP and the government, especially the courts. I favor personal rather than public religion.

280PLUS
July 4, 2005, 09:03 AM
The donations and exposition of desired issues to be addressed could take place prior to the election, giving each candidate an opportunity to state their positions on these issues giving the public a chance to compare apples to apples. Wouldn't THAT be interesting? A graph could be generated to show which issues were mentioned most thereby determing which ones are felt to be most important by the most people.

I'm sure it will all be implemented just as soon as pigs actually do grow wings and learn to fly.

Fly little piggy, flyyyyy...

LMAO

Dan from MI
July 6, 2005, 03:30 PM
Maybe because you agree with them? Why should you give a damn what their campaign is like if you agree with their policies? A "successful canpaign" is nothing but propaganda, designed to persuade the people who are too dumb to think through the issue on their own. Why should that AT ALL be a factor in your decision?

Doc:

The LP right now suffers from a "they can't win" image. There's a reason Ron Paul and Leon Drolet are Republicans.

A successful campaign is hard work. Those who don't run strong campaigns show that they are lacking effort. With the amount of money most LP and 3rd party candidates have in their races, they need to work extra hard to win. If Joe Libertarian isn't going to bust your butt and knock on 15,000 doors, why should I consider voting for him? Putting a name on the ballot isn't good enough for me. However, if he runs a strong grass roots level campaign, I'll be much more receptive to voting for that person, especially if I don't like the Republican running.


Look, I agree that they're pretty inept as politicians, and I too wish they would concentrate on the lower levels of government and build grass-roots support rather than wasing their efforts on the presidency. But knowing what kind of things the good politicians do to get elected and re-elected, give me a software writer any day of the week, as long as he knows that the government is more often the problem than the solution and is willing to legislate accordingly.

I know a few Badnarik voters. They were all anti-Bush voters who couldn't pull the lever for him, nor John Kerry. It's a similar reason I voted for Scotty Boman (LP) for one of the education boards. One of the Republicans was a crook, and I wasn't going to back a democrat.

The LP has ideas they can run on. Some of them I agree with. Some I don't, but I do have a strong limited government streak. I'd like to see the LP in the debates, as well as the Constitution Party, Greens, Reform Party, or any one who is on the ballot and can mathematically win that office. I've seen debates at smaller offices, and even congressional offices, but never the presidency.

If I run for office, I'll be happy to debate a libertarian right along with the democrat.

Dan from MI
July 6, 2005, 03:41 PM
I think that someone who is ACTIVE in local Republican politics can have more effect on the outcomes than someone involved at any level in the LP. Of course, that means getting your hands dirty in the everyday give & take of politics and not just whining about it on a message board...

Absolutely. Each state is different. In my case, I was elected precinct delegate(unopposed) twice. I am also on the county party's executive committee which consists of many local office candidates, and at large members chosen by the executive committee.

Gun owners are well represented here.

The Real Hawkeye
July 6, 2005, 03:41 PM
How about Representative Ron Paul for President in 08? Is he a viable Libertarian candidate? I think he just might be.

Dan from MI
July 6, 2005, 03:48 PM
People seem to forget that the BIGGEST problem any party other than the Dems and Reps face is FINANCES. Why don't we see the big media campaigns put on by the two parties being similarly used by the Libertarians?

My state representative won his first race, a primary against 6 people, on $10,000. State rep is not a small time office, especially for a candidate who was then 22 years old. He was outspent by 2-1 by most of the others. In the general election, he spent less and won easily (District is 65% Republican).

For most offices, it doesn't take millions of dollars to win. It takes door knocks, hard work, and good organization. The LP has more than enough money to get started there.

Desertdog
July 6, 2005, 03:53 PM
How about Representative Ron Paul for President in 08? Is he a viable Libertarian candidate?
Since he is serving as a Republican, I see no reason he couldn't be a viable candidate.

He would have my vote in the primary.

If you enjoyed reading about "Will You Now Reconsider?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!