Posted on 10/29/2004 8:50:48 PM PDT by freedom44
They won't because it's the smart thing to do.
Yes, of course. Republicans continue to assign a higher priority to hundreds of billions in vote-buying scams and pork, rather than consider the increased defense needs that lie ahead, or the deficit time-bomb that's already harming our economy.
And, have you noticed that nobody ever addresses my question about exactly when they plan to hold Republicans accountable?
I don't blame them for being embarrassed to support Big Stupid Government, but you'd think they would want at least some effort to reform it. Guess not.
Conservatives will continue to get bitchslapped by the GOP until they take a stand on principle, and let the republican leadership know that we will not tolerate an endless expansion of the welfare state.
Non-defense government spending has grown more than 300% faster under Bush than it did under Clinton...
But Bush keeps the neocons occupied with pretty fireworks in the middle east, and they don't seem to notice that he is drowning the country in massive government.
So you're going to blame voters, instead of candidates who couldn't appeal to enough voters to get elected?
Perhaps if the Republican party would stop being all in favor of rapidly-expanding government, they'd garner enough votes to win the close races.
Don't blame disgusted voters; blame the party, platform and candidates. Some of us still believe politicians need to earn support, not coast on a sense of entitlement or being "good enough" or "not as bad as the other guy".
Yes I am indeed. Voters determine winners. Voters voting Libertarian elects Democrats. It doesnt get more simple than that.
Voters voting Libertarian also made the difference in getting (democRat) Wyche Fowler tossed out, replacing him with a Republican.
and costing John Thune the election, and nearly costing Bush Florida in 2000 (he would have won by 12,000 had there been no Badnarik).
Otherwise, not. Sometimes alternatives to Big Government are desirable, and desired.
And save the "it's the most important election of our lifetimes" - y'all said that the last time, and will again the next time. And let's not insult our intelligence with "Vote Republican, or the terrorists will kill you!" hyperbole either, ok?
The next President will have a minimum of 2 SCOTUS places to fill. Would small government Libertarians prefer a Ted Olsen, or a Mario Cuomo? There is more to the race than Federal spending, wouldn't you agree?
You are a FReeper because there is so much we agree with. I myself am vary partial to Libertarian views. But as a political consultant I have seen the consequences of a Libertarian PARTY. I would much rather Libertarians work within the primary system to weed out big government Republicans before they advance. I think Club for Growth does a good job of this to some degree.
And in Washington state, cost Republican Slade Gorton his seat in the senate, giving us liberal Democrat Maria Cantwell.
And they're actually proud of it.
Fellow Libertarians should not vote with the party this year. "Libertarian" Michael Badnarik is a dangerous fraud. Badnarik--who is Lebanese and has taken tons of cash from the American Muslim Alliance (the group from which even Hillary returned the contributions!) has disturbing ties to supporters of Islamic terrorism. The Muslims are using the "Libertarian" label to hurt Bush. Badnarik is a total phony. Libertarians should not be fooled by this Wahhabist stooge!
Libertarians prefer, no - insist upon, strict-constructionist jurists who actually understand the Constitution and the severe limits it puts upon government authority.
Republicans prefer, apparently, judges who'll do what the Party wishes - including telling us what kind of toilets we are permitted to buy.
Cite your sources. Links. Now.
I was pretty shocked by all this. I never imagined that the Libertarian Party itself could be hijacked by supporters of Islamic extremism, but it appears that it has. It is also chilling that the two independent candidates this year (Nader) are of Lebanese descent, with ties to groups opposed to the United States and Israel. Here is one ...
(Michael) Badnarik accepted the American Muslim Alliance’s Al-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz Malcolm X Award. “Muslims have borne the brunt of draconian government actions since 9/11,” says Badnarik. “A plurality of American Muslims supported George Bush in 2000. Now they’re looking outside the major party club for candidates who support their rights.”
http://badnarik.org/press/release.php?p=1176
FLASHBACK (2000):
"Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign has returned $50,000 collected at a Boston fundraiser...The First Lady posed for photos holding a plaque given to her by the event's organizers. It expressed the appreciation of the American Muslim Alliance for her human-rights activism. Mrs. Clinton now says she didn't know the award was from the Alliance, even though the group's name was emblazoned on the trophy in large letters. "I get handed thousands of plaques," Mrs. Clinton now says. Alas for the First Lady, the American Muslim Alliance's national president, Agha Saeed...believes the Palestinians "have the right to resist by armed force" A code word for terrorism that, when viewed through the lens of the 9/11 attacks, even Hillary can't hide from."
I had found numerous additional links, that are on my office PC, I will try and post them in the morning. They include Badnarik's relationship with C.A.I.R., a radical group which has had numberous members and state leaders who have been convicted/indicted for funding terrorist groups, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad; one board member being convicted of training Muslims in Virginia to attack Americans.
Then Bush's top picks should (mostly, with one exception) please you. Kerry's should not. Nader is irrelevant and Badnarik is an strange fellow whose motivations and links to Muslim groups warrant deeper investigation.
Well Bob, contrary to what you may believe, not all libertarians are ingorant politically. I think most of them are somewhat inexperienced. This may be changed if the Libertarians can attract some crossovers who are already in office or who have experience. I see the Libertarian party as an asset to conservatives in the coming years. I don't think the platform is at all attractive to Republican Conservatives, but it may be more endearing to the Moderates and Conservative Democrats who are fed up with ultra liberalism in the DNC now.
"Well Bob, contrary to what you may believe, not all libertarians are ingorant politically."
Agreed, some Libertarians are not ignorant politically.
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.