Posted on 10/15/2012 2:30:04 PM PDT by Arthurio
Democratic hopes of maintaining a razor-thin Senate majority may hinge on an unexpected outside force: Libertarians.
In the battlegrounds of Montana, Arizona and Missouri, polls show the Libertarian nominee poised to siphon a fraction of the vote — a small fraction, but potentially enough to tip the outcome in a cliffhanger. And with the battle for the Senate shaping up to be a coin-flip proposition, no factor — not even fringe candidates with little more than a Libertarian label to propel their campaigns — is too insignificant to dismiss.
Given the small-government mantra of Libertarian voters, Democratic officials see the development as a major boon.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82379.html#ixzz29PEPJZAA
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Wow. What a positive, intellectual argument for Willard. You must be a charter member of MENSA.
Hi newbie.
I’d take the time to explain what “/s” meant in my post, but I’ll let disco tell you. After all - HE is the one you need to be ranting at.
Hey disco... Grab the lube and tell the newbie what a sarc tag is.
(lololol)
You never see or hear the Republican Party referred to as the "Republicanic Party".
Blah, any cute Libertarian chics? :P
Leftists are successful because government is a religion substitute for them.
Libertarians are the closest thing there is to dogged resistance to the leftists. They are the only real "counter-leftists" who are both persistent and consistent.
If you don’t see much difference between Obama and Romney, then you need to see this. And I do my research, also. None of this is based on anything Romney has SAID, it is purely based on his actions as Governor.
Here is the Club for Growth on Romney’s term as Governor, quotes regarding cutting size of government, entitlement reform, tax reform.
“On balance, his record comes out more positive than negative, especially when one considers that average spending increased only 2.22% over his four years, well below the population plus inflation benchmark of nearly 3%.”
“Governor Romney receives credit for reducing actual spending unilaterally in Fiscal Year FY2003, even though he entered office halfway into the fiscal year, because of the tremendous spending cuts he forced down the Legislature’s throat in January of 2003. Facing a $650 million deficit he inherited from the previous administration, Romney convinced the unfriendly State Legislature to grant him unilateral power to make budget cuts and unveiled $343 million in cuts to cities, healthcare, and state agencies. This fiscal discipline continued in 2004, in which Romney continued to slash “nearly every part of state government” to close a $3 billion deficit.”
“To his credit, Romney attempted to cut down on government spending by streamlining many duplicative and wasteful elements of Beacon Hill. Some of his more ambitious proposals were rejected by his über-liberal Legislature. These include: his plans to overhaul the wasteful Boston Municipal Court and close underused courthouses; merge the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority with the Highway Department; decentralize management of the University of Massachusetts; streamline the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission; and phase out the obsolete Worcester State Hospital where employees outnumber patients nearly 3 to 1.”
“Governor Romney successfully consolidated the social service and public health bureaucracy and restructured the Metropolitan District Commission. Romney even eliminated half of the executive branch’s press positions, saving $1.2 million. He also used his emergency fiscal powers to make $425 million worth of cuts in 2006, taking particular aim at local earmarks, instead of allowing the Legislature to dip into the state’s $1.2 billion rainy day fund. While there is no question that Governor Romney’s initial fiscal discipline slacked off in the second half of his term, on balance, he imposed some much-needed fiscal discipline on a very liberal Massachusetts Legislature.”
“Romney fought for legislation that would bring Massachusetts’ welfare system up to date with federal standards by increasing the number of hours each week recipients must work and establishing a five-year limit for receiving benefits. Much to his credit and to the dismay of many Massachusetts liberals, Romney successfully forced Medicaid recipients to make co-payments for some services and successfully pushed for legislative action forcing new state workers to contribute 25% of their health insurance costs, up from 15%. Governor Romney also deserves praise for proposing to revolutionize the Massachusetts state pension system by moving it from a defined benefit system to a defined contribution system.”
“In May of 2004, Mitt Romney proposed cutting the state’s income tax rate from 5.3% to 5.0%—a measure Massachusetts voters had approved in a 2000 referendum, but was blocked by the State Legislature in 2002. The proposed tax cut would have provided $675 million in relief over a year and a half. When the Massachusetts Legislature refused to budge, Romney proposed the same tax cut in 2005 and again in 2006 with no success. Romney was more successful when he took on the State Legislature for imposing a retroactive tax on capital gains earnings. After a bloody fight, Romney succeeded in passing a bill preventing the capital gains tax from being applied retroactively, resulting in a rebate of $275 million for capital gains taxes collected in 2002.”
more at link....
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=905
On RKBA:
Obama:
In 1996, signed issues statement supporting banning all handguns
In 2000, co-sponsored a bill to restrict buying handguns to 1 per month.
In 2004, voted against a bill protecting a homeowner if they had to use an illegal gun to defend against a home invasion
In 2005, voted against a bill protecting gun manufactures and dealers from civil liability for guns later used in crimes.
In 2008, supported the D.C. handgun ban argued in Heller vs. D.C.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
Romney:
Endorsed by the NRA. Also backed by GOAL, the Gun Owners Action League in Massachusetts who states:
“During the Romney Administration, no anti-Second Amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk. Governor Romney did sign five pro-Second Amendment/pro-sportsmen bills into law. His administration also worked with Gun Owners’ Action League and the Democratic leadership of the Massachusetts House and Senate to remove any anti-Second Amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006. A summary of this legislation follows.”
(The “assault weapons ban” that Romney signed as Governor was actually BACKED by the gun lobby there because it LOOSENED the existing restrictions.)
http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html
You called Romney a socialist. A socialist would never have acted as Romney did on the following:
vetoed in-state tuition for immigrants -http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/23/romney-had-mixed-record-on-immigration-in-mass/
arranged federal agreement for Mass State Police to arrest and seek deportation of suspected illegal aliens - http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/23/romney-had-mixed-record-on-immigration-in-mass/
vetoed immigrants from receiving state assistance for healthcare - http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060413/NEWS/304139962&cid=sitesearch
filed legislation to reinstate capital punishment - http://www.conservapedia.com/Mitt_Romney
tried twice to pass tort-reform in 2003 and 2006 - http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=905
vetoed union card-check bill that would allow union organizing without secret ballot - http://www.clubforgrowth.org/whitepapers/?subsec=137&id=905
He is a Socialist. Vetoes by a MA “Republican” Governor are worthless.
No, dear, he is not. And some of the vetoes held if you bothered to read the other posts I offered, or actually clicked any of the links to do some intelligent research.
But you aren’t ACTUALLY interested in intelligent research, are you.... You have a completely different agenda from what I’ve seen.
Listen, honeybunch, I’ve known Willard for 18 years. I’m quite familiar with him personally, his record in office and the agenda he has pursued, and I’ve spent 6 solid years on a nearly daily basis enlightening (warning) folks about him in thousands of postings. He’s a Socialist. You want to pimp for him, that’s fine, but don’t try to blow sunshine up our butts. You want to make the claim he’s better than Zero, be my guest. But this “race” is still a Communist vs. a Socialist. A Democrat run-off, to put it bluntly.
Yes, precisely my point.
I run in Libertarian circles and I am generally sympathetic to many of their positions, mostly economic and domestic. Libertarians add life and fresh ideas to intellectual debates and primary elections. But in general elections, Libertarians serve only to elect Democrats. In November, Libertarians are spoilers.
In national elections libertarians usually get .75-1.25 percent.
How many dems lost because of that vote?
I think you meant to ask how many Republicans lost because of the Libertarian vote. Several down-ballot races - including Slade Gorton's razor-thin loss to Maria Cantwell in Washington back in 2000.
Onei
No discostu, I’m not name calling. I am labeling. Your story sounds very nice. But in this election it is just nuts.
Sorry if I hurt your tender feelings.
Obama with a second term with no worries about the next election will do so much damage with his ‘executive orders’ that he MUST BE STOPPED.
Vote for the 3rd party if you will. Just know that you, discostu are an idiot.
Sorry about the name calling. Not.
No discostu, I’m not name calling. I am labeling. Your story sounds very nice. But in this election it is just nuts.
Sorry if I hurt your tender feelings.
Obama with a second term with no worries about the next election will do so much damage with his ‘executive orders’ that he MUST BE STOPPED.
Vote for the 3rd party if you will. Just know that you, discostu are an idiot.
Sorry about the name calling. Not.
No discostu, I’m not name calling. I am labeling. Your story sounds very nice. But in this election it is just nuts.
Sorry if I hurt your tender feelings.
Obama with a second term with no worries about the next election will do so much damage with his ‘executive orders’ that he MUST BE STOPPED.
Vote for the 3rd party if you will. Just know that you, discostu are an idiot.
Sorry about the name calling. Not.
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.