Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment I will no longer vote Libertarian...

I will no longer vote Libertarian because they aren't serious about winning. Every election, the Libertarians trot out a bunch of candidates to run for the Senate, House, Governor, etc... And every election, they either manage to throw the election to the Democrats or they make no noticeable impact.
<br> This is precisely the opposite of what they should be doing. The libertarians want to hit a home run and instead they end up swinging at air. Instead of squandering the party's money on elections that they have no hope of winning, they should concentrate on winning the school boards, the city councils, the county commissioners, and any of the other local offices. This way, they would build a power base and give the people a chance to see the Libertarians in action.
<br>Here in Oregon, the election went to a tax and spend Socialist-Democrat because the Libertarian candidate specifically targeted the Republican candidate in what amounted to a "If I can't win, then nobody wins!" campaign.
<br> The point of all this being, that until the Libertarians offer me something besides grandstanding (I've voted straight Libertarian since '92), I'll hold my nose and vote Republican.

I think they keep running people to stay on the ballots for whenever it gets serious, or the Republicans who seem hurt the most by them, will take up some of their ideas in order to keep them out of the running!
<br>
<br>Mike

Ed,
<br>
<br>Thanks for the post. You've expressed better than I ever could my concern with voting for Libertarian candidates.
<br>
<br>Norm

I will always vote Libertarian...

That's the beauty of our system; you have the choice. Here in Oregon, the people made a choice too. For some reason, they are in love with government and taxes around here, and the LP managed to ensure that the Dems took control.
<br>I guess I'll just have to learn to like hugging trees...

ebd10,
<br>
<br>I knew Kalifornia had gone red and suspected Washington state was a bright shade of pink.
<br>I am surprised about Oregon. I kind of envisioned
<br>Oregon as a manly state filled with self-sufficient independent thinking people.
<br>
<br>Norm

We still have plenty of independent thinkers, it's just that Portland is infested with Kalifornicators and New York Democrats that think they know better what people need. Personally, I don't think our state can afford anymore government "help".

Ed,
<br>
<br>You are right of course. To bad the Oregonians didn't put up eletrified fences to the north and south long ago.
<br>
<br>Luck,
<br>
<br>Norm

that's a big part of the problem...alot of the Liberal Democraps think that they know better than us..and they think that they need to save society from itself...through some misguided sense of "Noblesse Oblige"...we are "selfish" because we don't want to fund the vast cornucopia of social programs with our tax dollars...I remember Comrade Clinton saying "I would give the American people a tax cut if they knew what to do with it"

Edb 10--- Thanks for getting "it". There has been, are and will always be, TWO politcal ideologies--Liberal and Conservative. Anytime you split one of them, you help the other. I.E. Ross Perot gave us Bill Clinton(a bad thing) and Ralph Nader gave us George W.(a good thing). You recognized a similiar event in your state with a split in the conservative side. It's O.K. to be politcally independant and principled, just don't carry it to the point of being politically naive.--Bill

billg,
<br>
<br>Glad to hear another voice in the wilderness.
<br>
<br>Norm

I will not under any curcumstance vote Republican if I have a Libertarian I can vote for...It's better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.

Logansdad,
<br>
<br>I admire your fortitude. But isn't there an old saying about spitting into the wind?
<br>
<br>Norm

Logansdad;
<br> The problem with your position is this; The Libertarians point out the many disadvantages of living in darkness, they manage to get people to donate a substantial amount of candles, they talk about what a bright future we will have when the candles are burning, but the candles never get lit! Why? Because they don't understand that fire begins with a small spark and grows.

Ed, you hit on exactly why I try to vote libertarian. Enough folks start supporting libertarian ideas, maybe the repubs will take notice.
<br>
<br>You can't trust a democrat, that's all too true. But repubs aren't a whole lot better. Remember, it was John McCain (a repub) who gave us campain finance reform, AKA the incumbent protection program. It was also G. Busch Sr who gave us the last assault weapons ban.
<br>
<br>At least you know where you stand with a democrat. Republicans aren't worried about your rights as much as they are about getting re-elected.
<br>7mm

7mmbuster you said it better than I did..

Here's a guy who says it better than I can. I guess that's why he's the writer.
<br>7mm
<br>
<br>In 2000, I cast my presidential ballot for George W. Bush. It wasn't my proudest moment. But it seemed to me that I didn�t really have another viable option.
<br>
<br> I'm a libertarian who's not all that enthralled with the Libertarian Party. As I saw them, my options at the time were to:
<br>
<br>A) vote for Libertarian candidate Harry Browne, a guy with whom I agreed more than either of the other two candidates, but who couldn�t win and who, I think, most voters see more likely to be outfitted in a tinfoil hat than shaking hands with foreign dignitaries
<br>
<br>B) vote for George W. Bush, a guy who seemed likeable enough, but not terribly bright. But, he promised to be a "free trade president," promised tax cuts, favored school choice and recognized the need to give Americans ownership of our accumulated Social Security taxes
<br>
<br>C) vote for Al Gore, a guy with whom I agreed on almost nothing, and who is to "personality" what Boons Farm is to "wine."
<br>
<br>I chose option B.
<br>
<br>I�m no longer sure I made the right choice.
<br>
<br>Of course, I knew I'd disagree with the president on some issues, and I�m willing to accept the fact that several of those issues have now played themselves out in his policies. But what�s been particularly frustrating is that President Bush has time and again backed down from those issues with which I agreed with him -- the issues that provoked me to vote for him in the first place.
<br>
<br>For example, the president has caved on every school choice measure in his "leave no child behind" plan. The only thing he "won" in the education bill he negotiated with Ted Kennedy was a provision mandating one-size-fits-all national testing, an initiative that would expand, not retract, federal involvement in education.
<br>
<br>On Social Security reform, Republicans have run so far from "privatization," I'm surprised the president hasn't pulled a hamstring. In fact, National Republican Congressional Committee leader Tom Davis and the White House have prohibited the word "privatization" from even being uttered in Republican circles. It�s profanity. Republicans bought into Democrat propaganda suggesting that the issue was a loser in the midterm elections, despite polls to the contrary.
<br>
<br>However, Republican candidates who stood by their principles (Jim Talent in Missouri, John Sununu in New Hampshire, Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina) won. Republicans who ran from privatization (Jim Thune in South Dakota, George Gekas in Pennsylvania, and Doug Forester in New Jersey) lost.
<br>
<br>And what did the White House learn from these results? Apparently nothing. White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card has indicated that Social Security won�t even be on the policy agenda until after the 2004 election.
<br>
<br>The president has been most disappointing on trade. He extended tariffs on steel imports and softwood lumber to earn political points in battleground states. He hasn�t touched protectionist tariffs on textiles or sugar. He increased foreign aid outlays. He signed a massive, pork-laden, wasteful farm subsidies bill that�s likely to motivate trade repercussions for years to come. President Bush has been so bad on trade that conservative/libertarian columnist Steven Chapman, writing in Slate, declared "if you want free trade, elect a Democratic president."
<br>
<br>In a New York Times op-ed last weekend, National Review's John J. Miller criticized libertarians for costing the Republicans as many as four U.S. Senate seats. Miller, like lots of Republicans, see libertarians as extremists, hell-bent on "all or nothing" politics -- either we get privatized sidewalks and heroin on the playground, or we're going to vote for Ralph Nader.
<br>
<br>Of course, that's the furthest thing from the truth. My gripe with Bush and Republicans is not that they haven't moved quickly enough to reduce the size and scope of government, or even that they haven't moved at all. My gripe is that they've moved backward. Bush and his comrades in Congress passed a campaign finance "reform" bill that will restrict American political speech. They're preparing to add yet another Cabinet-level department to the executive branch. They've assigned a renowned liar and privacy opponent to oversee a massive database capable of monitoring almost every transaction made by anyone in the country.
<br>
<br>What's most infuriating is that John J. Miller and like-minded Republican cheerleaders blame libertarians for the GOP's lack of backbone. He writes:
<br>
<br>"Yet Libertarians are now serving, in effect, as Democratic Party operatives. The next time they wonder why the Bush tax cuts aren't permanent, why Social Security isn't personalized and why there aren't more school-choice pilot programs for low-income kids, all they have to do is look in the mirror." (Note how Miller avoids the word "privatized.")
<br>
<br>Nonsense. The corollary to Miller's statement is that if the Republicans had won the four Senate seats he claims were lost to libertarian "protest" votes, the next two years would have seen the installation of "personalized" Social Security accounts, school choice and a fairer tax code. Is Miller really na�ve enough to think any of these things would have happened? Republicans aren't interested in limiting the influence of government. They're interested only in getting re-elected, as Democrats are.
<br>
<br>Libertarians will vote for Republicans when Republicans give them reason to. Republicans aren't "entitled" to my vote any more than Democrats are "entitled" to the votes of African-Americans, or of Greens.
<br>
<br>Bush today has a rare opportunity. He is a popular president whose party controls both houses of Congress. He's coming off a midterm election that validated his standing with the American people. His next election is a full two years away. If ever there were a time to eschew politics for principle, that time is now.
<br>
<br>You want libertarian votes, Mr. President? Start earning them.
<br>
<br>Radley Balko is a writer living in Arlington, Va. He also maintains a weblog at www.theagitator.com.
<br>

It's not the Libertarian philosophy I disagree with, it's their methodology. Harry Browne & Co. suck up a huge portion of the treasury so that they can lose. What I want to see is more serious action at the local level. Forget the Senate and the Presidency, concentrate on school boards, city councils and other local offices. Places where individual votes can make a difference. Then, when we've had the opportunity to see the Libertarians in action, and they reveal themselves to be something other than just another mob of statist looters, they will have a real base of power to launch candidates into larger races.
<br>Their current system of running people that have no support, no track record, and no name recognition just won't cut it in today's political arena.

Statist Looters ?

Suck up a huge portion of the treasury ?