Posted on 03/02/2012 11:34:11 AM PST by libertarian neocon
It's time to stop dilly-dallying. Super Tuesday is upon us and with that, the nomination race could be all but over unless conservatives and libertarians finally unite behind one candidate, a candidate who can beat both Romney AND Obama. That candidate needs to be Newt.
Among the not-Romney's he is the only one who can unite the party. Economic conservatives like him because he balanced the budget and reformed welfare. Defense hawks like him because he is the most hawkish of the lot. Social conservatives, when they can get past his personal life, like him for his strong record on issues like abortion. And libertarians, like the Libertarian Party's nominee in 2008, Bob Barr, like him because he is economically libertarian and not over the top on social issues.
Can anyone honestly say the same thing about Santorum? He goes out of his way to attack individual freedom and libertarianism and completely blew his chance to be the nominee by focusing on social issues instead of the economy (probably because his economic policy record isn't really that great). Who attacks prenatal diagnostics? Or the idea of contraception? Or says he wants to vomit over a rather non-controversial (and somewhat revered) JFK speech? He has proven himself to be quite a bit more gaffe prone and offensive than Newt, despite the fact that people thought he was a "safer" option. Even I was offended by some of the stuff he said and I am a Pro-Life registered Republican. It's really not surprising that his support is crumbling like it is. See the latest tracking data from Gallup (Santorum's popularity is in dark green, Romney's is black [matches his soul], Newt's is orange and Ron Paul's is light green):
Santorum is just not ready for prime time. He is simply too divisive, offending gays, women, parents, protestants and libertarians (in total about 80-90% of the electorate). Unfortunately, he retains enough support to possibly give Romney a majority of the states on Super Tuesday. His conservative backers need to wake up quickly, bite the bullet and go with Newt. As the brilliant Thomas Sowell wrote:
Newt Gingrich is the only candidate still in the field who can clearly take on Barack Obama in one-on-one debate and cut through the Obama rhetoric and mystique with hard facts and plain logic.Nor is this just a matter of having a gift of gab. Gingrich has a far deeper grasp of both the policies and the politics than the other Republican candidates.
Can anyone really argue with that?
I think Ron Paul supporters (the historically Republican ones, not the liberals who are just visiting the GOP for this election in order to support Paul) need to wake up as well. They are not furthering libertarianism at all by supporting Paul any more. He's made his point and has shown that he is a force to be reckoned with but supporting Paul on Tuesday just increases the chances that the most statist candidate, Mitt Romney, is nominated. Do you really want to be responsible for nominating the only Governor, Republican or Democrat, to enact a socialist universal healthcare system in their states? Newt isn't a libertarian but he is the man who did the most to wound the leviathan in the last 30 years. Why not vote for him and give this country a chance? It clearly won't with either Romney or Obama.
Finally, Newt is simply the most electable candidate in the race right now. As I mentioned earlier, he can unite the party, has a great grasp of both politics and logic and can actually explain conservatism in a way that others can understand and agree with. Santorum and Paul are both to extreme to get almost any independents over into the fold.
Sure he has baggage but I think most of it will go away. Freddie Mac? Let's see Obama bring that up when he received over $126,000 in bribes, err I mean donations, from Fannie and Freddie while he was in or seeking office (he was the #2 largest recipient in Congress, #1 was the notoriously corrupt Chris Dodd). Nancy Pelosi? Let's see Obama make an issue out of that one or Newt's opposition to cramming down the Ryan plan.
It's time for believers in small government and personal liberty to unite behind Newt, otherwise we will once again have a Nixon vs. McGovern sort of choice in the fall. And the stakes are just too high this election for that.
“He says that he will kill Romney care,”
Sorry forgot to respond to this in my last reply. Anyway, Obama said he was a centrist in 2008 so I think it is much better to look at someone’s record rather than his positioning for a campaign. Romney’s record is terrible http://libertarian-neocon.blogspot.com/2011/12/romneys-terrible-record.html
So some libertarians aren’t very libertarian.
“So some libertarians aren’t very libertarian.”
Libertarianism is a belief in individual liberty up to the point of infringing on someone else’s. Let me know how believing in a strong defense with a volunteer army and defending babies from their own murder violates that.
Nothing represents the libertarians as well as their own party, I will use their party platform to define the real world position of libertarianism in American politics.
Not each individual’s private cherry picked definition who is claiming to be a libertarian.
90% of libertarians are outside the Libertarian party. There is a good reason for this.
Then they are not true libertarians, I assume that some like Noam Chomsky and Bill Maher want to work from within the Democrat party, while some want to work within the GOP as fifth columnists and move it to the left, but generally a true libertarian would adhere to the libertarian principles as they are written into political reality, within the libertarian party platform.
The Libertarian Party platform is all “gay” rights, pro-porn, pro-legalizing ALL drugs, prostitution, and I’m sure I’m missing something else.
It’s peurile libertine claptrap utopianism that if put into practice would lead quickly to anarchy, chaos and usher in real jack booted thugism in short order.
Any politician that is willing to offend sodomites gets at least a second look from me.
***Then you’ll like my tagline
“Then they are not true libertarians,”
Considering libertarianism is about individual freedom, conformity to some group’s platform isn’t required.
“The Libertarian Party platform is all “gay” rights, pro-porn, pro-legalizing ALL drugs, prostitution, and I’m sure I’m missing something else.”
You might think its okay for the government to tell you which consenting adults you are allowed to sleep with or which plants you can ingest but that is how we got to the situation we are now where the government is telling us which products to buy and that we have to buy contraception.
LOL, it is just a childish game that some people play by making it up as they go, look at you mocking the actual libertarian party and their true libertarian platform, yet wanting to be identified as a “true” libertarian yourself.
So you’re okay with the official Libertarian Party plaftform then. Okay, got it. Your straw man argument is that either a person is on board with utopian libertinism fairy land or a fascist gangster government, only two choices.
Have fun debating with your silly mind because life’s too short for me to deal with idiots.
“So you’re okay with the official Libertarian Party plaftform then. Okay, got it. Your straw man argument is that either a person is on board with utopian libertinism fairy land or a fascist gangster government, only two choices.”
It’s funny that I have you saying I’m some believer in a Libertarian fairy land and then another guy on this same thread saying I’m not really a libertarian because I dont agree with the LP platform enough.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.