Skip to comments.Open Letter to Sarah Palin, Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party
Posted on 04/16/2012 7:25:14 AM PDT by mongrel
I would appeal to Sarah Palin, Gary Johnson, and the Libertarian Party to make Sarah Palin the candidate for President at the Libertarian Party convention next month.
The Libertarian Party has never has a candidate that had a viable chance of winning. There is no reason to think that it will be different this year with Gary Johnson. Palin, however, has been vetted and would draw together a coalition of disenfranchised voters that would put her over the top above Romney and Obama. Romney has zero enthusiasm and hardly any group that could be considered his base. Only 25% of the country identifies as liberal and that is Obama's base. That leaves 40% enthusiastic conservatives as Palin's base which would join libertarians and Reagan Democrats to put her over the top. Palin's three groups of supporters would be enthusiastic, have great turnout, and get the mushy middle to join them. It would be the anti-establishment "cool" choice, rejecting the media and both "mainstream" political parties.
Gary Johnson would have a place in history as a king-maker rather than in a long list of forgettable 3rd party candidates. This coalition would pull together the core of what this country needs right now, a check on government power and corruption.
Palin is not the perfect fit for the Libertarian Party, but would provide significant support and movement for many of their goals. Neither Obama or Romney do that.
After the election, the establishment in both parties would be embarrassed and destroyed. The mainstream media would also take a significant hit. The conservative movement would have several potential moves to shape the future, with a great leader as the voice of that movement. A President Palin could keep the movement together to either take over the GOP, bring the Conservative Party to national prominence, or to continue with a coalition within the Libertarian Party. The GOP-E sunk to new lows this year in their disempowerment of rank and file voters this year and the voters will remember that when they reject Romney and vote for Palin.
I suggest the Libertarian Party because they are the 3rd party that has the best chance of getting a candidate on the ballot in all 50 states at this late date. They are the party that has some history and ties to Palin. Perhaps other conservative 3rd parties could make the same move and put Palin on their ballot also.
Palin has some history of social conservatism which is not a part of the Libertarian Party platform. However, at this point in history most social conservative issues are more about keeping government activism in check rather than imposing new restrictions. Libertarians do not support activist judges and government spending and social conservatives are fighting their wars on these same front lines.
This has the potential to be the disruption we are looking for.
I think winning is the easy part. The two challenges will be whether Palin would be willing to risk alienating the GOP-E in making the run. Secondly, is the Libertarian Party willing to set aside some of their pursuit of ideological purity to form a coalition with others.
A 3rd party run puts Palin's strengths front and center. She fought corruption and big government in Alaska and won. She would have a majority of voters nationwide that care about the same things and would rally behind her.
Taking the presidency in this way, along with strong conservative wins in Congress would provide Palin with the support she needs in both houses to enact legislation to draw down the debt, repeal Obamacare and roll back the Obama regulations.
Rather than wishful dreaming look at the numbers. Probably forty percent of the electorate are broken glass Democrats. Giving you the best case scenario let us assume that twenty percent of the electorate are dyed-in-the-wool Republicans. Adding together the highly committed voters of the two major parties brings the committed voters to 60. So the third party ticket would have all of the uncommitted electorate just to tie Obama which would be almost completely impossible.
In addition to the statistics, the third party would have qualify in all the states and would have raise huge sums of money in a short period of time. Furthermore, one cannot ignore the hostility of the MSM to Palin. The MSM will absolutely do its utmost to destroy Palin. Conversely, the MSM will support Obama and MSM support has been estimated to provide about a five percent edge.
I think a better strategy is for her to announce (as soon as possible) her intention to run with Newt in the Fall. That would boost Newt’s campaign to levels it has never seen, and destroy Mitt’s chances of clinching the nomination.
Those two would make the winningest ticket we’ve seen in our lifetimes, and would be precisely what the country needs in these dark times.
IMO no libertarian can be intellectually honest if he is not pro life.
Wrong political party. Agree with onyx.
Count me as a "Palin Libertarian"
Oh heavens forbid someone should have to change an initial next to their name because their Party no longer appears to give more than scant lip service to any of the above.
The problem is that Governor Palin’s views are not congruent with most Libertarians. Would she come out for drug legalization? Massive cuts in defense spending? Legalized prostitution? No government control over abortion?
“Something you are not”?
Palin is NOT a Libertarian.
Posing as one just to get elected is dishonest and immoral. I doubt seriously that she would even consider it (she’s not that kind of gal!).
Further, should she decide to change an initial next to her name, I would hope it would be because she truely identifies with the new party.
I think a bigger problem is that the establishment has perfected the two party system to keep corruption in place. There preferred method is to take an issue that appeals to the majority (smaller government) and keep that majority fractured into little groups over other issues.
Is the Libertarian Party so focused on legalized marijuana that they couldn’t put it aside for one election with the issues that are at stake? My point is, we need to learn that building ooalitions does not mean you are selling your soul. It simply means a willingness to work with people on certain issues and to oppose them on others. There is nothing dishonorable about that.
NO. Besides, libertarians won’t embrace her anyway. They are too busy caught up in the benefits of liberty in all things without accepting responsibility for the consequences. Palin should do a Martin Luther on the GOP and nail a copy of the Constitution on their front door as she’s announcing her Independent run for POTUS.
Drug de-crim is a Constitution issue. There is no Art 1 Sec 8 power for the Feds to run said "drug war". End it.
End welfare and entitlements as well and you won't have to worry about dopers sitting around munching up your tax dollars.
Defense spending? End our role as Globo-cop, also not in the Constitution, and re-enforce citizen RKBA. You COULD cut defense spending a ton without having to reduce their primary objective of being a DEFENSE force.
Prostitution? "Acts of Capitalism between consenting adults." It's already a State issue and not subject to Federal authority. Again, see Article 1 Section 8 for the short list.
Abortion? Most Libertarians want Roe v Wade over-turned. Those that feel it's a "woman's right to choose" are overlooking the basic libertarian principle that if it is human, killing it is murder. Check http://www.l4l.org/ for the Libertarians for Life. We need an Amendment if we want protection for the unborn adopted into the Constitution. Keep hammering it through that process until it passes. Anything less violates the Constitution.
Constitution Party has had ballot access in 36 to 41 states in the last 3 presidential elections. They “hope” they will in all states in this next election. Maybe with Palin they could make it happen.
Interestingly enough, the poll at the link says that 67% would consider voting for an independent candidate. I think a coalition of 40% is that magic number that would put an independent candidate over the top.
McCain. Dole. Romney. Paul. Specter. Boehner. Snowe. Pawlenty...
More turncoats in the GOP than actual conservatives these days.
If you are FOR individual liberty, individual responsibility, the US Constitution, and the US Bill of Rights... And you take it seriously... Then you probably have more in common right now with either the Libertarians or Constitution Party folks than with the GOP.
Are you sure? Smaller government. Individual Rights and concomitant responsibilities. Free market advocate. Property Rights. RKBA...
Sure as hell doesn't sound like your average GOP-er.
Giving me examples of others who have done it, does not make it acceptable ....
I like Palin, but she is not a Libertarian and shouldn’t pose as one.
I don’t think Palin has to pose as anything to get on the ballot. There is nothing dishonest or immoral to highlight issues of agreement and work together for one election. In fact, it is quite simple to also name issues about which you disagree.
If you don't like that, tough sh*t. Facts are facts.
The numbers are the opposite of what you said. About 35-40% identify as
Conservative and 25% as liberal. Elections change sides because of turnout. There are a few that flop around in the middle. Conservatives have a definite advantage in national elections, but haven’t had anyone to be excited about for awhile.
Least we could do is try running a REAL conservative under either the LP or Con Party banner and see if we can create a sea change.
This is all predicated on Romney scoring the GOP-e nomination. If Newt gets the nod at a brokered Convention... This is all moot. Newt is, arguably, more conservative than even Bush 43 was. Palin would still win on conservative bona fides... but the case is harder to make against Newt than Willard.
I am liking the idea of Newt choosing Sarah now as his VP and have the entire lineup of candidates that have dropped out standing with him and endorsing him.
“The key to getting what we want is taking OVER the Republican party.”
But why? What makes the “Republican Party” so valuable to us that we’d want to take it over? Does it have a group of far-seeing conservatives running it? Are they just misguided and taking a path not-quite-conservative-enough for us or are they completely off the reservation?
As the GOP now stands (or lays, depending on your point of view,) we’d have to defeat or drive out of the country every last person in the RNC and all those who have benefitted from it. Who would be called upon to do that? Why, all those social conservatives, gun owners, tax cutters and strong defense people you mentioned.
Rome ruled the known world for centuries and then declined and died. America has ruled for over two hundred years and is in serious trouble now. Perhaps it’s time for the Republican Party to pass away and be replaced by a third party... one that can properly represent all those conservatives you named.
We could call it The Conservative Party.
If Romney is nominated it won’t matter which you vote for. Soros wins either way!
I understand (and appreciate) your point — however, it is a certainty that it will be a disaster for America if Obama is re-elected — even with a Republican congress as it is clear our leadership is scared to stand up to the little tyrant.
I explicitly assumed party affiliations and not the far more subjective liberal-conservative classification. How do you classify a person who is socially conservative and fiancially liberal? Many people vote the straight party line ticket. Moreover, many people who assert they are independent do so to enhance their self image as being intelligent and highly thoughtful.
I don't equate The Libertine Party with The Tea Party.
I would love to see Sarah on the ballot in all 57 States!!!! However the Libertarians are not interested in pro life Christian Family Values I do not believe....For sure am open to correction.
Just do not see the Libertarian Party being interested in Sarah, nor should Sarah be for them unless they were going to respect and or embrace her Christian values.
Also The Libertarian party knows they have no chance, so do not see why they would want to give up their “principals” whatever they may be.
As a matter of fact, I did. I voted Constitution party and Taxpayer party before. Both of which were sub 1% vote getters. After watching for many decades, I have concluded if you can't get a 3rd party, change the one your in. The biggest 3rd party we ever had was ole big ears running with Clinton and Bush. We got Clinton. When Lincoln started the Republican party, there was a strong agenda to vote for. I don't think we are there yet. When there is blood in the street,...... maybe.
Right now you are wasting your vote on any 3rd party, even libertarians. They are just so radical, they don't care. Even Ron Paul came back to the Repubs after a tryst with the Libertarians.
If the Tea Party got organized, we might be able to pull off a hat trick, but we would be gambling on another 4 years of Obama. Even with Romney, we may get Obama. The Primary always lets us speak our collective minds, but the reality is we have to win. I HATE Romney, but the reality is Obama or Romney. If I had a 3rd choice, I might consider it. 1% isn't a choice.
There are party’s out there already, but they get less than 1%. We already have the Christian vote, the gun vote, the tax cut vote, the strong defense vote and more. Nothing is pure. There are many Repubs that make me ill, McCain and Romney are 2 of them. But they are better than Obama. That’s what we have and that’s all we will get. The Tea Party handed the Repubs a victory and we couldn’t even get a Tea Party committee chairman. Some Republicans need to leverage their power to get what they want, or we will be ignored once again. That is what Newt is trying to do. In the end, they know we will all stay on the plantation and vote for Romney over Obama. This is the same tactic the Dems use to keep their various factions on board. I guarantee there are scores of Dems that aren’t happy with Obama, but they would never vote “R”. They just keep hoping that one day there would be another FDR and 11 years of Depression to get gubmint checks over. Obama is almost there, but he needs one more term to destroy America. Romeny isn’t my first choice, he’s not even my 5th choice, but he’s not Obama.
I don’t know this but I do know people and I suspect I am right... This is much like the arguments put forth when the Republican party was forming. There was no internet of course, but there were newspapers, editorials and letters to the editor, so the argument was made at some point.
Enough people ignored it and droped their support for the Whigs or whatever party they felt was out of step, and the GOP was born. I think it needs to happen again. Granted we won’t see a turnaround within the next four years but we won’t get one with Romney either. Even if the ‘Doom and Gloomers’ are right and America is sliding over the edge into Socialist oblivion, Romney won’t save us. The best we can hope for from him is a slower slide. I’m with the growing crowd that thinks we might as well get it over with, let the ‘useful idiots’ who’ve sat on the sidelines cheering feel the evil their idiocy has wrought. No country - NO society has ever made socialism work. All that has ever been accomplished is a lot of death and destruction followed by some sort of more democratic government.
We’re all going to die: You, me, our kids and friends. There’s no way around it. The trick is to make a difference while you’re alive.
That’s what I figured. It’s all about abortion.
If we didn’t have MFN and welfare for illegals, the only folks coming here would be those wanting to BE Americans.
Also, without our government continually hamstringing our industries with idiotic regulations and Union authored protectionism... We’d still be the manufacturing center of the World.
Also, factor in private property Rights. If the ranchers/property owners along the border used their Second Amendment to protect their lands from invaders... Do you really think that wouldn’t have an affect on illegal border crossing?
Libertarianism may be a “simplistic ideal” in some peoples viewpoints... But then again, so is the Constitution and it works just fine if you actually FOLLOW it.
No, it's not ALL about abortion, but much of it stems from that line of thinking. The legalization of dope is just another one. I have personally witnessed the damage smoking weed can do and they act as if it's harmless. Look at their ridiculous foreign affairs stance. To act as if we can be the big boy on the block and not be attacked is foolish. Someone is always looking to take us down a notch, and the libertarians would let them. How about gay marriage? What could that possibly hurt. Ask a child how their childhood was when they turn 21 after being raised by 2 perverts. Have you ever seen 2 men want to raise a girl child or 2 dykes want a boy baby? I haven't seen one, NOT ONE!
Yes abortion is big with me, but I'm not a single issue voter. Abortion is just a sign they are totally bankrupt of common sense. Some things can't be argued about, they are either right or wrong. Setting a tax rate might be something we could compromise on, but not killing children.
A woman makes her choice when she pulls her panties down. After that, their is another person involved. Libertarians are the ones that say "Anything goes as long as it doesn't affect someone else. Abortion kills someone else. It's no longer a woman's privacy when another person suffers.
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.