As it has been so frequently pointed on this forum Libertarians are not Conservatives.
Voting Republican does not advance my agenda. Voting Republican rewards Republicans for making government bigger and intrusive. It says to Republicans, "I like your prescription drug program. I like your interventionist foreign-policy. I want stricter enforcement of existing gun-control (but not the repeal of any gun-control). I want the government to continue to meddle in education and health care. I want to preserve Social Security."
Your best bet is to infiltrate the Republican party, run your candidates under the Republican banner for the lower offices allowing them to develop campaign skills and get name recognition.
Libertarians neither need nor want any help from Republicans. We want Republicans to simply continue doing what they've always done. That's all the help we need.
...you can't understand that we can't roll back 50 years of Socialist advances overnight!
Oh, but we can roll it back overnight. We need people with integrity like Ron Paul who will vote consistently against big government.
...you help the Socialists make more advances?
The last Republican president to preside over a reduction in the federal budget was Warren G. Harding 80 years ago. Since then we've had 9 Republican presidents all of whom have made government bigger.
Republicans held a majority of seats in both Houses of Congress from 1995 through 2001 during which time the federal budget grew from $1.4 trillion to $2.1 trillion. Were they working to roll back 50 years of Socialist advances?
That statement is just as silly as your contention that all candidates on the ballot have an equal chance, as if voting were done by a random number generation program, or by rolling 20 sided dice.
Your statement about Ron Paul proves my point. Who is he? I know nothing about him. If I barely know the name, how is someone who only gets their news from Peter Jennings to decide to vote for him? Sadly, those are the types that make up the majority of our population. You are trying to run a lame colt with an over-weight rider in the KY Derby; I won't bet on that horse!
If you had the sense to bore from within, and at least help to prevent further decay of our rights we'd at least hold the line against the Socialists. For now that is the best we can hope for. The Universities, public schools, and the press are all in the Socialist camp - they took over our infrastructure slowly and carefully. Yet, you think the LP can get total power and change everything overnight? How? Did they find a magic wand? Do you remember the budget fight of '95, and how Newt and the Republicans were tared and feathered in the press - with their view never being represented? Guess what? They were trying to reduce the size and scope of the Feds. Remember "Block Grants" for school lunches? What was the constant press line? Wasn't it starving children? When someone proposes increasing a department by less then twice the rate of inflation, it is called a drastic cut, and we'll be kicking old people out on the streets. Will your LP magic wand nuter the press? Will it make them report both sides of an issue fairly? I think not!
I'd be happy with a static fed budget; a freeze on spending. One of the things you fail to take into account in your model is inflation. Holding to current levels is a cut. I'd love more than that, I'd love to see many fedral programs eleminated, others drastically scaled back. Heck; were I to live in a political fantisy world like you do I'd be demanding a complete and total return to the Constitution, as written by the founders and legally ammended. However, I have enough understanding of reality to know that it won't happen in my lifetime, much less overnight (unless there is a revolution).
The reason I don't respond to all your points is that I can only deal with so much illogic at a time. Virtually all your points come from a firm foundation in fantisy. Fantisy is fine to a point. I often fantisize about winning the lottery, but I recognize that it is a fantisy as I know the odds are against me. You think all odds are even - it's not that simple, either in gambling or in politics. In order to win at either you need to give yourself the best odds possible. In politics, that means using an established party for your own ends (ie. bore from within). Let's say 7% of the population is Libertarian, if they offered to join the Republican party, don't you think that the Republicans would welcome them? Oh, wait, sorry; I forgot who I was talking to!
I sincerely hope that you are not representitive of the LP, since I'd love to see them get some representation and power. I think that we have a historic chance to eliminate the D/S party from power in the next 8 years. However continued use of the term "Republicrats" won't help elimiate the Socialists.
As I stated, you are living in a fantisy world where you don't let reality penetrate. This saddens me as I know you are not stupid. If you'd just let a bit of reality penetrate into your fantisy world you might be worth talking to.
Oh, btw, since it seems you are pro gun, but don't belong to the NRA because they have some grounding in the reality of politics, maybe you should look into JPPFO. Oh, sorry again; I forgot. Even though JPPFO is similar to the LP in that they have no chance of attaining real power, and are somewhat idealistic; you'd probably find one or two things in their platform that don't fit into your fantisy world.
MARK A SITY
http://www.logic101.net/