How Bush Lost the Libertarians

IowaStatePhiPsi · #1 09-05-2004, 04:44 PM

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040913&s=risen091304

Though the author seems to have a bias towards labeling Libertarians and Cato as a more solid block towards the GOP, this article does good pointing out how Bush's policies have affected some Libertarian perceptions of him.

(especially posted for Brother Warshay)

Kevin · #2 09-05-2004, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by IowaStatePhiPsi
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040913&s=risen091304

Though the author seems to have a bias towards labeling Libertarians and Cato as a more solid block towards the GOP, this article does good pointing out how Bush's policies have affected some Libertarian perceptions of him.

(especially posted for Brother Warshay)

Libertarians are sort of backed into a corner. I don't think Bush really can lose the Libertarian vote. An intelligent Libertarian knows that if they do not vote for Bush, that is essentially a vote for Kerry. While Bush has grown the government in certain areas, most of us of the libertarian persuasion realize that much of that was necessary in order to face unique challenges. Privitization of social security was put on the back-burner primarily due to the fact that the Dems would never let it happen and would use it to scare seniors into voting their way.

Why fight a battle that you can't win just so you can lose votes? By continuing with privitization at this time (until there's a real crisis in Social Secruity), Republicans have nothing to gain.

It's a generally held principle that Democrats favor the expansion of government controlled entities to provide services for people. Libertarians believe that if there is a need in a place like America, entepreuners will fill it. While there are services that really only the government can provide such as defense -- which is one reason the expansion of the department of Homeland Security makes sense to many libertarians.

While Bush is not a libertarian candidate, you could almost put Kerry's picture in the dictionary next to "Not a Libertarian Candidate". And unfortunately, we haven't had a libertarian candidate worth a crap in a long time, even in state elections that I know of -- that's why Libertarians usually vote for the candidate that most fits their ideology and against those that least fit it.

PhiPsiRuss · #3 09-05-2004, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ktsnake
An intelligent Libertarian knows that if they do not vote for Bush, that is essentially a vote for Kerry.

Some of us Libertarians are intelligent enough to know when we live in a state that is absolutely going to vote for Kerry. A vote for Bush or Kerry is useless here. I have the opportunity to help (in a very small way) to increase the relevance of Libertarians, particularly when it comes to Federal matching funds for 2008.

IowaStatePhiPsi · #4 09-05-2004, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
Some of us Libertarians are intelligent enough to know when we live in a state that is absolutely going to vote for Kerry. A vote for Bush or Kerry is useless here. I have the opportunity to help (in a very small way) to increase the relevance of Libertarians, particularly when it comes to Federal matching funds for 2008.

For 3rd-party voters in non swing-states I applaud that effort.
For 3rd-party voters in swing-states I'm not sure how to respond. Part of me thinks they should stick to voting their political beliefs while part of me thinks they should strategically vote against their least-liked candidate.

Kevin · #5 09-05-2004, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by IowaStatePhiPsi
For 3rd-party voters in non swing-states I applaud that effort.
For 3rd-party voters in swing-states I'm not sure how to respond. Part of me thinks they should stick to voting their political beliefs while part of me thinks they should strategically vote against their least-liked candidate.

I'll go for the later almost every time.

We never get good candidates in Oklahoma. At least this time around, I received enough 'inside' information (at least info about candidates that wasn't reported in the press) to realize that they were either slightly to the right of Attilla the Hun or corrupt as heck.

But I'll vote for Bush in the National election as my state is somewhat of a swing state with only a few electoral votes.

DeltaBetaBaby · #6 09-06-2004, 02:06 AM

I walked for my local LP in today's parade!

Anyway, I live in a Kerry state, so my vote will be Badnarik.

Optimist Prime · #7 09-06-2004, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by IowaStatePhiPsi
For 3rd-party voters in non swing-states I applaud that effort.
For 3rd-party voters in swing-states I'm not sure how to respond. Part of me thinks they should stick to voting their political beliefs while part of me thinks they should strategically vote against their least-liked candidate.

I think 3rd party voters should have a convention to discuss who will be running for congress, and how to vote. That way, we'll at least get new people. Congress needs a 100% turnover rate. I say, vote against all incumbants. Those people are worthless.

DeltaBetaBaby · #8 09-06-2004, 10:33 PM

Politicians and diapers should both be changed for the same reason.

Anyway, 3rd parties do have conventions. I think you mean independants.

Rudey · #9 09-06-2004, 10:45 PM

Do you people still read Ayn's fairytales?

http://www.nationalreview.com/

Because it's better.

-Rudey

Optimist Prime · #10 09-07-2004, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltaBetaBaby
Politicians and diapers should both be changed for the same reason.

Anyway, 3rd parties do have conventions. I think you mean independants.

I meant all the 3rd parties together

DeltaBetaBaby · #11 09-07-2004, 08:00 PM

Except for the fact that the third and fourth largest parties in the US, the Libertarians and the Greens, respectively, have ideologies that are diametrically opposed.

hoosier · #12 09-07-2004, 08:25 PM

Atlanta radio talk show host Neal Boortz (Boortz.com) is syndicated to about 260 stations around the country, and he's openly Libertarian - and spoke at their convention this summer.

He does break with many Libertarians who are anti-Iraq war, but he is supporting Bush (since not voting is like voting for Kerry.)

Boortz is live from 9:00 - noon eastern time. Try www.wsbradio.com to listen.

KillarneyRose · #13 09-08-2004, 12:04 AM

I read the title of this thread really quickly and thought it said "How Bush Lost the Librarians." I just couldn't believe he'd lost the librarian vote, seeing how Mrs. Bush is a former librarian and all.

Apparently, though, the librarian vote is safe.

DeltaBetaBaby · #14 09-08-2004, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hoosier
Atlanta radio talk show host Neal Boortz (Boortz.com) is syndicated to about 260 stations around the country, and he's openly Libertarian - and spoke at their convention this summer.

He does break with many Libertarians who are anti-Iraq war, but he is supporting Bush (since not voting is like voting for Kerry.)

Boortz is live from 9:00 - noon eastern time. Try www.wsbradio.com to listen.

Boortz is extremely controversial, and his speech at the convention this summer was very divisive to the party for months in advance. The basic principal of the LP is the non-use of force, and in the opinion of many (myself included) you can not be pro-Iraq war and be a Libertarian.

Kevin · #15 09-09-2004, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltaBetaBaby
Boortz is extremely controversial, and his speech at the convention this summer was very divisive to the party for months in advance. The basic principal of the LP is the non-use of force, and in the opinion of many (myself included) you can not be pro-Iraq war and be a Libertarian.

I consider Thomas Jefferson to be the embodiment of Libertarianism. He was definitely not anti-war. Sometimes, bombs are the only solution.