Posted on 11/16/2012 3:21:20 AM PST by Reaganite Republican
I don’t think libertarians are necessarily a conservative vote. The “liber” part of their name is not accidentally reminiscent of “liberalism”.
They are pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-drugs, and anti-foreign defense footprint.
Just looking at that list makes me wonder why folks think the everyday liberatarian would vote for a conservative.
Maybe the GOP ought to work on being inclusive to the Libertarian-minded folks instead of kicking them out? Just a thought.
AGREED IN FULL
I find the Libertarian social issues AND military stance -particularly re. Iran- utterly revolting... not at all what I’D call conservative, either
*** PING ***
I’ll third that; “libertarians” I know are just libs who don’t like paying for freebies for black people. There is nothing “conservative” about them; even Romney is a right-winger to them.
If republicans wish to win one day they might consider the skills needed to form a coalition. As long as they disparage and belittle those who don't think exactly as they do good luck with those close elections.
Nah, that’s not true. If anything, Libertarians are more reminiscent of original ‘true conservatives’.
The semantics have become confused and conflated with all sorts of nonsense over time. Philosophically speaking, the US was founded as a Liberal nation—in the sense of what is now known as ‘Classical Liberalism’ or Libertarianism in the context of US politics. What happened was that the Progressives/Socialists essentially stole the word ‘Liberal’ for themselves, and so those who desired to stay true to America’s (Classical) Liberal foundations generally became the Conservatives.
My apologies for being so short, but maybe the Paulbots should get their heads out of their asses after the primaries are over and a clear candidate has emerged. Their vanity just cost America big time.
They are not conservative
Pro abortion, legalize drugs, open borders, effeminate military posture... NO THANKS
Libertarians under RP were by and large a distraction and negative, many refused to vote for Romney in the end, and as noted above cost us a MINIMUM of 10 Congressional races
Don’t need them around imho
"Libertarian" is derived from the word "liberty".
Great insight into the rationalizing mind of the RINO. Forget freedom and liberty, limited government, fiat currency and the damage the Fed is enacting on Americans, wars of aggression - lacking Congressional approval, but they prefer to focus on the win/loss of the Republican Party above all.
John Boehner is the perfect example of how the country got into this mess by continuing the drifting leftward within the progressive wing of the Republican Establishment. If the RINO’s had listened to the conservative Tea Party base about how Romney was a weak candidate, they never should have run him against Obama. But they didn’t listen when they ran McCain in 2008, they didn’t listen when the ran Romney in 2012, and they won’t listen when they run Christy in 2016. They prefer to attack Libertarians and Tea Party as the reason they lost the election and ignore their contribution to the massive debt and drift to larger government through the Bush years.
Shrug. Even Palin tried to warn conservatives and the GOP not to reject the Ron Paul folks this election cycle and shut them out, but they did it anyway at their own peril.
So why would a pro-drug Libertarian vote for a Conservative?
Libertarians too often confuse liberty with license.
A libertarian ensured Harry Reid’s victory over John Ensign in 1998.
There are political bodies in our society who do not participate well in coalitions ~ and they tend not to win elections, but that's just them.
Something to think about ~ both major parties have wide fluctuations in vote totals. The Republicans have dropped as much as 26 million votes one election to another (2004 to 2006) and the Democrats have dropped as much as 30 million (2008 to 2010).
The combined votes of all the independent more ideologically driven "third parties" is a fraction of that!
Just one of the reasons serious analysists of political matters tend to discount third-party influence. For all practical purposes, both Democrats and Republicans can win elections simply by pulling in more of their own partisans ~ which is why they will continue to do business the way they have been doing it.
Saying that Libertarians favor abortion, drug use etc. is using Democrat tactics of distortion of intent. Like accusing Ron Paul of being racist because he opposed the government passing laws telling small business owners who they can and can’t hire, that they can’t show discrimination in hiring practices. Libertarians prefer to think that government should not insert itself at all into anyone’s hiring decisions.
Likewise, Drug use shouldn’t be regulated by the government, not condoning drug use, but saying government should stay out of personal matters entirely. Once government starts getting involved in peoples personal lives - that’s how larger government gets rationalized and liberty is lost.
There are rightwing libertarians who find the paramilitarization of police forces, no-knock raids, and civil asset forfeiture without even the benefit of a charge let alone a trial, more of a threat than the drugs against which the war on drugs is reputedly being fought.
Assuming they’re all potheads and druggies is a mistake, therefore.
Don’t need them around imho
Let's see, the RINO's don't need evangelicals, they don't need libertarians, they don't need pro lifers, they don't need America Firsters...
You mittbots keep floating turds like mitt - who's next, Jeb? - and driving away the base and you wonder why you'll never win another election. I will never vote for a GOPe candidate again. I'm done with the GOP. FUGOP.
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.