Posted on 11/08/2002 8:35:05 AM PST by pabianice
Some would probably vote Republican, but some would probably also vote RAT (remember, Libertarians espouse free pot, free booze, free sex, etc. -- you could make a convincing case that Clinton was a closet Libertarian).
But more to the point, I suspect many of them would not vote at all. Having a Libertarian candidate to vote for gives them a way to vent their frustration with the system, which is probably good. Without that pressure release valve, I think many would simply have nothing to do with the whole process.
I did not vote for them except in one less important race. It didn't make any difference. Most of my guys lost because of that absolute idiot we had as a governor the last 8 years and who intently wasted money we didn't have on stupid unnecessary projects.
Tommy Thompson controlled WI for 16 years, no one could touch him at election time. His replacement McCallum, couldn't get the vote out. Look at the numbers compared to Thompsons past races. GOP voters did not turn out for Mc Callum. Place the blame on the door step it belongs; the GOP of WI.
So you feel that these Republican candidates would've lost by an even greater margin had there been no LP candidate? Obviously using your logic the LP stole votes that otherwise would've gone to the Dems.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Libs want victimless crimes decriminalized, which is far from "free" as in government-subsidized, no-cost that you imply. Clinton greatly expanded the role and power of the federal government in essentially everything he touched, which makes him a statist, the exact opposite of a libertarian, even though he hypocritically enjoys many of the vices his jackbooted thugs arrest other people for doing, that libertarians incidentally would like to see decriminalized.
Any Republican whiners our there who want to make a little bet? Now that the GOP controls the House, Senate and White House, how much will you bet that government will actually grow smaller? Let me know, I'll gladly take your money.
Libertarians espouse absolutely no entitlements. You want things, you earn money and buy them. The only ones I see advocating free drugs around here are Republicans. You may have heard of free prescription drugs for seniors?
-- you could make a convincing case that Clinton was a closet Libertarian).
This might be most absurd lie ever posted on FR. Libertarians as a whole despise the Clintons.
Maybe this jem will help your understanding:
"...when we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans...When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it...That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapons sweeps and more things like that to try to make people feel safer in their communities"
- Bill Clinton, MTV's Enough is Enough, 1994
Philosophically, perhaps, a half-brother, but in the "deeds not words" regard, libertarianism looks at both parties rather more as retarded cousins who suffer from thyroid-induced giganticism under the care of a gov't nurse.
Ha ha ha. The Republicans have compromised enough prinicple for the rest of eternity. It's time somebody stuck to principles -- the vote mongering careerist Republican politicians and their fawning lickspittles like yourself never will.
If that's the case, I'm sure you'll have no trouble linking us to the Libertarian Party's website to show us exactly where in their platform you found that.
B.S.
I voted Republican, since this was a close race where there was a serious difference between AZ's two candidates for governor.
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.