This article speaks to me (bolded the key points)


WASHINGTON — Libertarians — people who cringe at intrusive government, high taxes, nation-building and politicians telling them how to behave — could turn out to be the key swing voters in Tuesday's contentious midterm election.

And, in an unusual development, that might not bode well for Republicans this time around.

A number of political scientists and libertarian pundits say that libertarian voters who sided with the Republicans in the past have become disgusted with bloated federal spending, the war in Iraq and prevailing social conservatism in the GOP-dominated White House and Congress. Many feel libertarian voters will either vote for Democrats on Tuesday or just stay home, and that could play a role in deciding key battleground races.

Republicans need to be taught a lesson — that they can't keep thumbing their noses at us," said Chuck Muth, president of Citizen Outreach, a libertarian think tank in Washington.

“Very few of us will vote Democrat. A lot of us will stay home,” he said.
Muth, who lives and works in Nevada, has long considered himself a Republican. But not this year. He points out that libertarians aren’t necessarily card-carrying members of the Libertarian Party (http://javascript<b></b>:yzwc();siteSearch('Libertarian Party');), but have long toiled away in the conservative movement of the Republican Party.
"A lot of columnists and conservative leaders in the movement are saying, I don’t care how angry you are, you have to go out and vote Republican," Muth said. "No I don't. They haven't earned it."

For months, the cracks have been showing in Republican support from the usual backers: in the most recent FOX News Poll, 78 percent of Republicans said they were definitely voting Republican on Tuesday, a drop from previous election cycles.

“We are seeing greater solidarity among Democrats than among Republicans,” said Scott Keeter of the Pew Center for the People and the Press (http://www.people-press.org/), which has conducted extensive public opinion polling throughout the election cycle.

While Republicans have recently been courting wary social and religious conservatives with a media blitz that concentrates on border protection and gay marriage, those who consider themselves libertarian-conservatives say they feel they have been given the shaft for the last six years.

"With libertarians you have to worry about turnout and whether they might even vote Democrat," said David Boaz, vice president of the Cato Institute, which in October released "The Libertarian Vote" (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6715) with David Kirby, executive director of the America's Future Foundation.

The Cato report, which crunches numbers from the Pew Center, the Gallup Governance Study and the American National Election Studies, asserts that voters with libertarian ideals make up about 13 percent of the electorate, and though they preferred George W. Bush in the last two presidential elections, the president's support actually declined among these voters from a 50 point lead over Al Gore in 2000 to a 21 point lead over John Kerry in 2004.

“That was the original reason why I got into this race,” said Brian Houillion (http://javascript<b></b>:yzwc();siteSearch('Brian Houillion');), a Libertarian Party candidate for Congress in the conservative 4th District of Kentucky, where former Democratic Rep. Ken Lucas is running neck-and-neck with GOP Rep. Geoff Davis.

“In our area, in northern Kentucky, I saw how voters have become disillusioned and disappointed with our system,” he said. “I saw Republicans, who through the 1980s and '90s were trying to be fiscally conservative and trying to limit government and its power, not doing that anymore. They’re trying to make government bigger than even the Democrats before them.”

According to Pew, libertarians make up around 9 percent of the electorate. They also find that 50 percent of libertarians typically identify with or lean Republican, while 41 percent identify or lean Democratic and 9 percent are independent or unaffiliated.

About 18 percent of independents in today’s electorate hold libertarian values, according to Boaz, suggesting that if libertarians are indeed looking for a change, they could be playing a role in the strong independent movement toward Democrats this year.

According to an October Washington Post/ABC News poll, independent voters are supporting Democrats 2 to 1 over Republicans.

“I think if libertarians don’t have someone from the (Libertarian Party) on their ballot … I think a strong number of them will vote for the Democrats,” said Butch Morgan, a Democratic Party official in the 2nd Congressional District in northern Indiana, where Democrat Joe Donnelly is giving GOP incumbent Rep. Chris Chocola a run for his money.

Disaffected Republican voters who say GOP-led Washington has led to bloat and bad government are the ones who can really affect the turnout on Tuesday, he said.

“I’m hearing a lot of that at headquarters,” said Morgan. “A little balance is what they are looking for. That is what people are telling us and we’re listening to them.”

But not everyone is convinced that Republicans — even those with libertarian values — are leaving the party in droves. Carol Tabor, president of Family Security Matters (http://www.familysecruitymatters.org/), said national security is still a top issue among Republican voters, and they are not likely to vote for a Democrat on that score.

“It depends on turnout — I wish I had a crystal ball,” she said. “While there is a tremendous disappointment in the Republicans, its not enough to punish them by not voting for them,” particularly when they feel Democrats are so bad on the issue.

Ed Patru, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee (http://www.nrcc.org/), said libertarians certainly aren’t going to find solace with the Democrats, who he says have made it “crystal clear in unambiguous terms that they want to repeal the tax cuts and tax relief as we know it.

“Along with that, they’ve promised billions of dollars in new spending … and bloat the size of government beyond what anybody can imagine,” Patru said.

But Keeter points out that national security isn’t as hot an issue among voters as it was in 2002 and 2004 and concern about the Iraq war has consistently topped their surveys among voters.

“A lot of what happened in 2002 and 2004 was some of these (swing) groups’ ideological views were overshadowed by national security and the War on Terror. We know that terrorism is not as prominent an issue for people today,” Keeter said.

“I think if libertarians are not making up their mind on the basis of terrorism they are open to persuasion by Democrats today because of issues like gay marriage, stem cell research,” he said, noting that libertarians do not think the government has any place in deciding who can marry, and should not impede on important medical research based on moral beliefs. "You can see libertarians taking more things into account as they make their minds up.”


I voted early this morning. In the race for the US House, I wrote in our retiring Congressman as he leans libertarian. For the State House, I voted Libertarian. The rest I left blank.

For the 20+ issues on the ballot, I simply shaded in the "NO" circle on every single one.

It is my hope that by 2008, more voters would be libertarian-minded since it does have appeal to the whole political spectrum.

I voted early this morning. In the race for the US House, I wrote in our retiring Congressman as he leans libertarian. For the State House, I voted Libertarian. The rest I left blank.

For the 20+ issues on the ballot, I simply shaded in the "NO" circle on every single one.

It is my hope that by 2008, more voters would be libertarian-minded since it does have appeal to the whole political spectrum.

No offense, but I don't see how your votes help your cause. Writing in for a candidate that is retiring is basically throwing away your vote. And there are libertarian-minded candidates. They're called Democrats. And while I would love to have a valid third party, right now that isn't a choice. So why not vote for the party that most appeals to your values?

And there are libertarian-minded candidates. They're called Democrats.

Do you know what a Libertarian is? ;)

A good hint would be if the person gets mad when you talk about raising the taxes on the top 1% of Americans and universal health care, he just may be a Libertarian ;).

Biggle must have changed his screen name to Ezarik (unless he's Jesse). But to take the bait, there is something called "principles". Voting for red or blue does not adhere to those principles, esp. after what we've seen the Reps done the past 6 years and the Dems for 30 years during my lifetime. But I'll just excuse you for being clueless.

The majority of eligible voters will stay home today. Many are disgusted with the business of politics and if they do vote, it will be for none of the above (unless you think that changing from one evil to another will solve anything). However, as other articles pointed out, gridlock will be a desirable thing but I am not sure exactly what will achieve more of that.

If you think about it, what has much greater impact on our lives are the local issues. That's what many don't realize when they look to Washington DC for "answers" or "solutions". The reason I voted no on all but one issue is the simple mantra the the government (no matter what level) the governs least, governs best. The one issue I voted yes on was to allow a competing cable company to come into one section of town. Breaking up a monopoly is a cool value to vote for.

Biggle must have changed his screen name to Ezarik (unless he's Jesse). But to take the bait, there is something called "principles". Voting for red or blue does not adhere to those principles, esp. after what we've seen the Reps done the past 6 years and the Dems for 30 years during my lifetime. But I'll just excuse you for being clueless.

You're the one who thinks that your little stunt today is going to change anything and you call me clueless? I would think that your vast years of experience would tell you that this is the system we have. Do I like it? Hell no. I would love to have a valid third party in this country but it's not happening any time soon. You can vote your principles all you want, but why complain when nothing changes? Why should a politician listen to you? Especially if you only represent 9 percent of the electorate?

The majority of eligible voters will stay home today. Many are disgusted with the business of politics and if they do vote, it will be for none of the above (unless you think that changing from one evil to another will solve anything).

Are you talking about voters in general, or libertarian voters?

And yes, I know what a libertarian is. I also know that in today's world, the Democratic party is closer to libertarian views than the Republican party.

In general. Would 35% turnout be expected?

I've heard that voter turnout has been pretty high, especially with it being an off year.

You can vote your principles all you want, but why complain when nothing changes? Why should a politician listen to you? Especially if you only represent 9 percent of the electorate?


Officially, yes but according to a recent poll, more than half of those polled lean towards libertarian values. Take me, for example, I am not counted in the 9% since I have never registered for a political party (R, D or L).

But to answer your question. Because they will not listen and will cater primarily to their own self-interest of power and corruption, we get the politicians we deserve because voters think re-re-re-re-re-re-re-electing the likes of Byrd, Kennedy, Stevens, etc. will actually make more of a difference than voting what you truly believe is right.

And yes, I know what a libertarian is. I also know that in today's world, the Democratic party is closer to libertarian views than the Republican party. :eek: Not hardly! Big government tax and spend Democrats being even close to libertarians??? Don't think so at all.

:eek: Not hardly! Big government tax and spend Democrats and Republicans being even close to libertarians??? Don't think so at all.

Fixed.

If you and Erirak start a pissing contest, I'll delete this thread and start over.

And yes, I know what a libertarian is. I also know that in today's world, the Democratic party is closer to libertarian views than the Republican party.

Eh. I wouldn't say that. I think liberation-minded (tend to lean to the center wings of the party line) candidates exist on both sides of the party. Both parties are just too far-winged, in general, to be able to match up with the liberatarian values.

Eh. I wouldn't say that. I think liberation-minded (tend to lean to the center wings of the party line) candidates exist on both sides of the party. Both parties are just too far-winged, in general, to be able to match up with the liberatarian values.

That would be a more accurate statement.

:eek: Not hardly! Big government tax and spend Democrats being even close to libertarians??? Don't think so at all.

And I suppose the big spending Republican government (which has gotten much larger in the past six years) is closer? Especially with that whole getting involved with people's private lives (gay marriage), spying on people, that sort of thing. :rolleyes:

His vote, he can vote how he likes.

For what it is worth, where I could on the ballot today, I voted Libertarian.

I've never voted for any party other than Republican or Democratic. If my vote is deemed useless and clueless.. oh well.

Fixed.

If you and Erirak start a pissing contest, I'll delete this thread and start over.

I won't defend Republicans, since this is the first time I split my ticket between Gop and Tax Payer Party (also called Constitution Party elsewhere).

But if the Libertarian Party starts to gain traction it will come from ticked-off Republicans, not from Democrats. BTW, must be nice to have a 'delete' button. How's that feel?

His vote, he can vote how he likes.

For what it is worth, where I could on the ballot today, I voted Libertarian.

I've never voted for any party other than Republican or Democratic. If my vote is deemed useless and clueless.. oh well.

Thank you. It's only the Big Party machines that makes you believe you are wasting your vote, not realizing how wasteful it has been sending those politicans to DC for the past 40 years.

Officially, yes but according to a recent poll, more than half of those polled lean towards libertarian values. Take me, for example, I am not counted in the 9% since I have never registered for a political party (R, D or L).

But to answer your question. Because they will not listen and will cater primarily to their own self-interest of power and corruption, we get the politicians we deserve because voters think re-re-re-re-re-re-re-electing the likes of Byrd, Kennedy, Stevens, etc. will actually make more of a difference than voting what you truly believe is right.

I'm not surprised that most voters have libertarian values. I know I do. I don't want the government telling me what I can and can't do. I know I don't want the government spying on me. I know that I value my rights and don't want the government to take any of them away. That's the same view as most liberals. We might differ on taxes, but we do have some things in common. That was my point. Is libertarian support of Republicans based entirely on taxes and ignoring everything else?

So what's your plan for getting more libertarian candidates? You'd better get them in one of the two parties because otherwise they won't stand a chance. Doing your little protest isn't going to change anything. Especially in today's politics where it comes down to voting for the lesser of two evils.

Oh, and my last name is Ezarik. Ezarik. I'm not Jesse.

His vote, he can vote how he likes.

For what it is worth, where I could on the ballot today, I voted Libertarian.

I've never voted for any party other than Republican or Democratic. If my vote is deemed useless and clueless.. oh well.

You're right. It is his vote to do as he chooses. And you're free to vote as you like, too. But I don't understand all the hang wringing when nothing changes. What do you expect to happen? Do you really expect a Libertarian candidate to win?

I won't defend Republicans, since this is the first time I split my ticket between Gop and Tax Payer Party (also called Constitution Party elsewhere).

But if the Libertarian Party starts to gain traction it will come from ticked-off Republicans, not from Democrats. BTW, must be nice to have a 'delete' button. How's that feel?

It will not be the Libertarian Party. In the most libertarian city in the second most libertarian state in the US (after NH), the Libertarian Party has disbanded. They had gone about it wrong. Instead of working from the grassroots, they tried to make a splash at the top.

I fully believe the time is right to get the message out because of widespread voter discontent that is being drowned out by the red/blue hype/myth. Look how many criticize taxation, nation-building spendings, Patriot Act, security over civil liberties, PAC influence, earmarks, morality by legislation, incompetent federal beauracracies, protectionism, govt land grabs, etc.

Thanks for posting that Bucc. I could never really get a handle on where you were coming from and always felt your position smelled a bit fishy. Now I understand and respect it a lot more.

I don't agree with it but I understand it and can certainly see the appeal in the argument.

I'm not surprised that most voters have libertarian values. I know I do. I don't want the government telling me what I can and can't do. I know I don't want the government spying on me. I know that I value my rights and don't want the government to take any of them away. That's the same view as most liberals. We might differ on taxes, but we do have some things in common. That was my point. Is libertarian support of Republicans based entirely on taxes and ignoring everything else?

So what's your plan for getting more libertarian candidates? You'd better get them in one of the two parties because otherwise they won't stand a chance. Doing your little protest isn't going to change anything. Especially in today's politics where it comes down to voting for the lesser of two evils.

Oh, and my last name is Ezarik. Ezarik. I'm not Jesse.

You differ on taxes with Bucc, or with the Democrats?

What do you expect to happen? Do you really expect a Libertarian candidate to win?

Using that logic, you might as well vote for any candidate that is ahead in all the polls by any significant margin that could be deemed as impossible to overcome. After all, why vote for a loser...

Thanks for posting that Bucc. I could never really get a handle on where you were coming from and always felt your position smelled a bit fishy. Now I understand and respect it a lot more.

I don't agree with it but I understand it and can certainly see the appeal in the argument.

I think the perception has been about legalizing all drugs, opening up all borders and stuff like that. That would be the extremist wing, just like the Reps and Dems have their extremist wings. But thanks for your kind words.

You differ on taxes with Bucc, or with the Democrats?

I meant liberals and libertarians differ on taxes.

You differ on taxes with Bucc, or with the Democrats?

Taxes fall under the general heading of govt revenues/expenditures - not something that is inherently good or bad in of itself. I (and other libertarians) have been criticized for talking about "money" but the point is not about money but how money is used for power and corruption in the federal govt (esp. against local govts, private citizens and busineses). The evil is the increasing power of the federal govt and money (or taxation, "wastes", etc.) are just means to that end.

Using that logic, you might as well vote for any candidate that is ahead in all the polls by any significant margin that could be deemed as impossible to overcome. After all, why vote for a loser...

Not really. If you vote for one of the two major party candidates, you know you have at least a hope of winning because it's going to come down to one of those two. But you know going in that a libertarian candidate doesn't stand a chance.

Not really. If you vote for one of the two major party candidates, you know you have at least a hope of winning because it's going to come down to one of those two. But you know going in that a libertarian candidate doesn't stand a chance.

I never understood this argument.

Here's a reality check - your one vote won't turn any election. The personal importance of voting goes far deeper than trying to influence the outcome of an individual election. Going against ones values to in a futile attempt to alter election results just makes no practical sense.

If people voted their conscious, and not strategically, we'd have more meaningful options on election day.

I just read something regarding the exit polls. They are making the conclusion that voting has become more national, as oppose to local as has been said for decades. I don't know about that because in many places, the representative (or at least the party) will not change and there are a lot of hot button state/local issues to vote on. A voter cannot vote for gridlock (if that's a goal) because we can only vote for one candidate. Voters rightly feel frustration about the whole process but if they actually take the time to look at the ballot, there is very little "national" in it.

Not to mention that with campaign finance laws, I believe you need 5% to get funded from a Presidential standpoint. (I'm sure there are probably other laws on the books too but, not sure of them all).

So, outright winning isn't everything. There are other goals to be achieved.

i consider myself a libertarian, i'm extremely anti-big gov, but the one area i differ is i am opposed to gay marriage. opposed in the sense that i don't agree w/ it, not in the sense that i would attend a rally. i don't care all that much, but if you ask me my opinion on that issue you would know where i stand.

i don't vote though. if i want to make a point rather than throwing away a vote i would sooner just stay home and post on a message board and try to sway people's opinion's like Bucc does on many occassions. more effective that way. i'm not naive enough to think silly little voting protests will affect anything other than making a voting line longer for someone behind me whose vote will go towards one of the big two party candidates.

If people voted their conscious, and not strategically, we'd have more meaningful options on election day.

In theory, yes, but that's not how things are. And if you want to vote your conscience, do so. But again, don't complain when nothing changes. If you want to change the system, you have to work with it. Right now that means working within one of the two main parties.

In theory, yes, but that's not how things are. And if you want to vote your conscience, do so. But again, don't complain when nothing changes. If you want to change the system, you have to work with it. Right now that means working within one of the two main parties.

Not if you live in states like MA, WV or AK where nothing will ever change with the likes of Byrd, Kennedy or Stevens.

Not if you live in states like MA, WV or AK where nothing will ever change with the likes of Byrd, Kennedy or Stevens.

Well, in cases like that you should vote for Byrd, Kennedy, or Stevens. Do you really think that voting for someone else will change anything?

i consider myself a libertarian, i'm extremely anti-big gov, but the one area i differ is i am opposed to gay marriage. opposed in the sense that i don't agree w/ it, not in the sense that i would attend a rally. i don't care all that much, but if you ask me my opinion on that issue you would know where i stand.

i don't vote though. if i want to make a point rather than throwing away a vote i would sooner just stay home and post on a message board and try to sway people's opinion's like Bucc does on many occassions. more effective that way. i'm not naive enough to think silly little voting protests will affect anything other than making a voting line longer for someone behind me whose vote will go towards one of the big two party candidates.

Check out the Constitution Party. A Constitutional named Jore just might win a congress seat in Montana.

Well, in cases like that you should vote for Byrd, Kennedy, or Stevens. Do you really think that voting for someone else will change anything?

And that's the point. As long as they (or their protoges) are in positions of power in Congress, how will voting for or against them change that? Might as well vote your values. What I'm trying to say that working within the party is all and good except when you have those three I mentioned (as well as others) that will go against what you will believe.

I always found it distasteful people saying they are "throwing away their vote" by voting for a 3rd Party candidate because they "can't win". What ever happened to democracy and voting for who most agrees with you? Why vote for a person you really really don't like, but you dislike a small amount less than the other guy?

It's a copout to try to bring people into voting for one of the 2 major party candidates.

Listen, I voted for a Libertarian for Governor in Georgia. It wouldn't have mattered AT ALL if I voted for the Democrat. The Republican won easily... so why vote for the Dem or Libertarian? And Hell, I despised both candidates enough that if I didn't vote for the Libertarian, I wouldn't have voted for either of them... is that better for you?

It's a copout to try to bring people into voting for one of the 2 major party candidates.

You know, I used to be an idealist, too. I wanted a third party to make a serious challenge. I was hoping Perot would do well in 1992 and Nader in 2000. And what happened? I watched as those two did nothing more than play spoiler. They never had a chance to be elected. What they did was prevent someone else from being elected.

Now, maybe you like playing the role of spoiler, but not me. After 2000 it became clear that I could either keep pulling for third parties, or I could work with one of the parties that actually has a chance to win and make changes that way. Change the system from within.

I watched as those two did nothing more than play spoiler.

And got their message out... and showed there was undercurrant of discontent in the major parties.

What they did was prevent someone else from being elected.

GOOD. Maybe they'll pay attention to some of the disenchanted.

You got to change the people's attitude, knowledge and expectations before the system can be changed.

And got their message out... and showed there was undercurrant of discontent in the major parties.



GOOD. Maybe they'll pay attention to some of the disenchanted.

Have you noticed any change in the last 14 years for Repubs or 6 years for Dems?

You got to change the people's attitude, knowledge and expectations before the system can be changed.

How do you plan to do this? With your little write-in stunt for a retired Congressman?

You know, I used to be an idealist, too. I wanted a third party to make a serious challenge. I was hoping Perot would do well in 1992 and Nader in 2000. And what happened? I watched as those two did nothing more than play spoiler. They never had a chance to be elected. What they did was prevent someone else from being elected.

Now, maybe you like playing the role of spoiler, but not me. After 2000 it became clear that I could either keep pulling for third parties, or I could work with one of the parties that actually has a chance to win and make changes that way. Change the system from within.

I'm still unclear how voting for a candidate who you don't like, but who comes from an established party can "change the system from within"

How do you plan to do this? With your little write-in stunt for a retired Congressman?

Who would you have me vote for? Joel Hefley will pick up quite a number of write-in votes. He has been very critical of his Rep. replacement (for good reasons). His opponent is no better. Joel headed the House Ethics Committee and he went against the wishes of the leadership to act on one of the Rep. Congressman under investigation (forgot which).

Have you noticed any change in the last 14 years for Repubs or 6 years for Dems?

Actually... the Republicans and Democrats have gotten a bit more extreme. I think part of that may be in response to 3rd party candidates at the extremes.

Though I wonder how voting for the Republican or Democrats would have changed those parties any.

The Constitution party is a bunch of nutjobs - if you're going 3rd, at least go Libertarian.

I don't understand how any of you are not voting Dem in this election esp. after what the Rep. have been doing. :mad:

Fixed.

Sorry, just slipped out.

I live in that congressional district in KY that was mentioned in Bucc's article. I didn't vote today. I was working and I didn't try to get my absentee ballot. I would have voted for the Libertarian candidate for many of the reason's that were mentioned here. Houillion looks like he will grab about 5% of the vote, with Davis (R) retaining the seat 51-44.

I have voted strongly Republican for years, but I have been so frustrated and ticked off by the direction that Bush has lead the party. The main problem that I have is the complete lack of fiscal awareness. I really feel that this article speaks accurately about the way that many moderate republicans like myself feel. Normally I would be dissapointed by the results of the election tonight, but the party needed a wakeup call, they needed to get kicked in the ass, because they have drifted too far off the deep end, and if they want to get some of us back they need to rethink their strategies.

Thanks PilotMan, that was well said.

One of the things I have been thinking about today is what was brought up earlier: where would libertarian-minded candidates come from? Historically is has crossed party lines (witness the late Sen. Proxmire, D-WI). It is perceived that it would be more libertarian-conservative as oppose to libertarian-liberal because one of the basic tenets of liberalism is socialism (the opposite of libertarianism). Maybe they will be better defenders of civil liberties but then again, I think about the clamp down on free speech in universities as well as past efforts regarding censorships. Perhaps they are no different in that they are for/against things if it suits them or can be used to their advantage.

So if it's not clear that libertarianism comes from a political platform, perhaps it comes from certain parts of the country or certain demographics or certain socio-economics or something else?

Just rambling...

Only thing I'm concerned about is stopping another major terrorist strike on U.S. soil. Since it's starting to look like the Dems will take Congress (at least the House), I expect to see a mushroom cloud over an American city within the next 5 years or so.

You think Bush will nuke bomb his own people? :p

Taxes fall under the general heading of govt revenues/expenditures - not something that is inherently good or bad in of itself. I (and other libertarians) have been criticized for talking about "money" but the point is not about money but how money is used for power and corruption in the federal govt (esp. against local govts, private citizens and busineses). The evil is the increasing power of the federal govt and money (or taxation, "wastes", etc.) are just means to that end.
And as I keep pointing out, reducing the power (i.e., money) of the government is damn near impossible because people like getting stuff from the government. There is no national desire to cut programs that would make any difference in the actual budget.

You know, I used to be an idealist, too. I wanted a third party to make a serious challenge. I was hoping Perot would do well in 1992 and Nader in 2000. And what happened? I watched as those two did nothing more than play spoiler. They never had a chance to be elected. What they did was prevent someone else from being elected.

Now, maybe you like playing the role of spoiler, but not me. After 2000 it became clear that I could either keep pulling for third parties, or I could work with one of the parties that actually has a chance to win and make changes that way. Change the system from within.


That's the problem third parties have always had. They try for the big prize, rather than trying to get congressional seats. If you can get congressional seats in a part of the country, and then expand from there, you have the makings of a viable political party.

And as I keep pointing out, reducing the power (i.e., money) of the government is damn near impossible because people like getting stuff from the government. There is no national desire to cut programs that would make any difference in the actual budget.

I for one hate getting things from the government because I am basically giving it to myself.

The problem is that those in power lack the guts to make any significant change. That is why the Republicans changed their tone when they came to power, they were afraid to take away the cash from the different districts.

I for one hate getting things from the government because I am basically giving it to myself.

The problem is that those in power lack the guts to make any significant change. That is why the Republicans changed their tone when they came to power, they were afraid to take away the cash from the different districts.

It was incredibly easy to enact the tax cuts. Not so much when it came to cutting services and programs.

To their credit, the Libertarian Party does both, running local folk and national. Though I do consider the national LP to be a bit nuts, some of the local folk are more moderate ;).

I'm still unclear how voting for a candidate who you don't like, but who comes from an established party can "change the system from within"

You have to work with the party, not just vote. If your only course of action is going to be to vote, then why are you complaining about poor choices? Don't like what the parties are offering? Get off your ass and do something about it.

You think Bush will nuke bomb his own people? :p

Nope, but I do expect the Dems to launch investigation after investigation of Bush and roll-back things like the Patriot Act, and cut and run from Iraq. This will embolden the terrorist who will see this as Allah blessing their cause and making the great Satan (us) cower before them. They played the media in this country perfectly by ramping up attacks the month before the election (just like they did in Spain, when they set off a bomb at the train station just before that country's election). The Democrats owe the Iraqi insurgents and terrorists much thanks.

On the domestic side, several key Democrats have already said they would roll back Bush's tax cuts, so get ready for less take-home pay or writing a bigger check at tax time, or getting a much smaller refund.

Also, get ready for a bumpy time on Wall Street for a while.

Nope, but I do expect the Dems to launch investigation after investigation of Bush and roll-back things like the Patriot Act, and cut and run from Iraq. This will embolden the terrorist who will see this as Allah blessing their cause and making the great Satan (us) cower before them. They played the media in this country perfectly by ramping up attacks the month before the election (just like they did in Spain, when they set off a bomb at the train station just before that country's election). The Democrats owe the Iraqi insurgents and terrorists much thanks.

On the domestic side, several key Democrats have already said they would roll back Bush's tax cuts, so get ready for less take-home pay or writing a bigger check at tax time, or getting a much smaller refund.

Also, get ready for a bumpy time on Wall Street for a while.

Or rather, give us back our civil rights (rolling back the PATRIOT Act), creating less terrorists than would be due to US occupation of Iraq and focusing more on getting bin Laden (leaving Iraq... though I don't think that'll happen), and actually ATTEMPTING to balance the budget (roll back Bush's tax cuts on the top end wage earners). All of it still has to try to get through Bush & Senate.

Admit it, you are playing Steven Colbert here. Because if you are serious... wow, you've lost it somewhere down the line haven't you? :p

I lean pretty libertarian..and realize that especially in Wyoming, it's not necessarily the smartest thing to do, so I don't. But I don't buy this talk all the time of a "wasted" vote. I think it comes down to money and organization and if there was more of that for the Libertarians, they would be more of a factor in certain parts of the country.

That's the problem third parties have always had. They try for the big prize, rather than trying to get congressional seats. If you can get congressional seats in a part of the country, and then expand from there, you have the makings of a viable political party.

You're right, but with our system of government it is really difficult to have a third party even in Congress. And with the amount of power and wealth that the two parties have, I just don't see how a third party stands a chance.

That's where changing people's attitudes, knowledge and perception come in. They may like it from what little they here about in the media and from their representative but they will increasingly not like the strings that will be attached. Civil liberties is much, much more than not wanting to be wiretapped or having their phone records given out, it's about how much control they can have locally that can directly influence their lives. It means making your choices regarding schools locally instead of some mandate from DC about not leaving a child behind or having ketchup as a vegetable. It also means being able to get back some of what you pay in transportation taxes without being blackmailed to a federal mandate on speed limits. The more they take from you, the more you have to beg to get your share of the pie and that comes at a price.

Nope, but I do expect the Dems to launch investigation after investigation of Bush

Hmmm... sounds like what the Republicans did in 1994 to Clinton after they won the House. They started a massive probe into a $80,000 real estate deal whose outcome was that the President lied about getting a blowjob. They held 160 hours of hearings to see if the President used the White House Christmas card list to solicit donations. In comparison, there was a total of 24 hours of hearings on Abu Gharib. There's a lot to investigate that was suppressed by the Republican leadership in Congress.

On the domestic side, several key Democrats have already said they would roll back Bush's tax cuts, so get ready for less take-home pay or writing a bigger check at tax time, or getting a much smaller refund.

They can talk about rolling back tax cuts all they want, but you seem to forget that Bush is still in the White House.

Nope, but I do expect the Dems to launch investigation after investigation of Bush and roll-back things like the Patriot Act, and cut and run from Iraq. This will embolden the terrorist who will see this as Allah blessing their cause and making the great Satan (us) cower before them. They played the media in this country perfectly by ramping up attacks the month before the election (just like they did in Spain, when they set off a bomb at the train station just before that country's election). The Democrats owe the Iraqi insurgents and terrorists much thanks.

On the domestic side, several key Democrats have already said they would roll back Bush's tax cuts, so get ready for less take-home pay or writing a bigger check at tax time, or getting a much smaller refund.

Also, get ready for a bumpy time on Wall Street for a while.

Chicken Little is that you?

Or rather, give us back our civil rights (rolling back the PATRIOT Act), creating less terrorists than would be due to US occupation of Iraq and focusing more on getting bin Laden (leaving Iraq... though I don't think that'll happen), and actually ATTEMPTING to balance the budget (roll back Bush's tax cuts on the top end wage earners).

Admit it, you are playing Steven Colbert here. Because if you are serious... wow, you've lost it somewhere down the line haven't you? :p

You amaze me...there are news reports about how federal tax receipts are at an all time HIGH...so much so that the budget deficit was half of what it was projected to be. It happens every time there is a tax cut -- it happened during the Kennedy administration, it happen during Reagan's term and it happened during Bush's term.

Re terrorists...so once we leave Iraq, all the terrorists who are coming into Iraq from Iran and Syria and are leading the fight against us there are going to go home and live happily ever after? Nope, they'll happily regroup and try to hit us hard in this country again. In case you don't remember, we weren't in Afghanistan or Iraq on 9-11...come to think of it, we weren't there during the first World Trade Center bombing during Clinton's term, nor when our African embassies were bombed or when the USS Cole was attacked. Yeah...I'm sure they'll go away and leave us alone :rolleyes:

Hmmm... sounds like what the Republicans did in 1994 to Clinton after they won the House. They started a massive probe into a $80,000 real estate deal whose outcome was that the President lied about getting a blowjob. They held 160 hours of hearings to see if the President used the White House Christmas card list to solicit donations. In comparison, there was a total of 24 hours of hearings on Abu Gharib. There's a lot to investigate that was suppressed by the Republican leadership in Congress.

I actually do hope they do this, because if they do, they won't hold on to their power very long.

After the Dem's anal probe of Reagan and Bush I, and the Republican's anal probe of Clinton, I think the public would quickly get sick of more of the same.

You amaze me...there are news reports about how federal tax receipts are at an all time HIGH...so much so that the budget deficit was half of what it was projected to be. It happens every time there is a tax cut -- it happened during the Kennedy administration, it happen during Reagan's term and it happened during Bush's term.

Do we still have a budget deficit? And the national debt is? Don't you think that perhaps there may need to be a bit more done to reduce said debt?

It is interesting though that during Reagan's and Bush's term, as you have listed, the deficit has shot through the roof. A lot of it is due to spending, but the other part is that tax revenues does not adjust for population growth. If you'll note, tax revenues rose during Clinton's years as well, and he raised taxes.

Re terrorists...so once we leave Iraq, all the terrorists who are coming into Iraq from Iran and Syria and are leading the fight against us there are going to go home and live happily ever after? Nope, they'll happily regroup and try to hit us hard in this country again. In case you don't remember, we weren't in Afghanistan or Iraq on 9-11...come to think of it, we weren't there during the first World Trade Center bombing during Clinton's term, nor when our African embassies were bombed or when the USS Cole was attacked. Yeah...I'm sure they'll go away and leave us alone :rolleyes:


Because... that's what I said. The right has such a capacity for strawmen, one wonders if they have any actual arguments. Our ill fated invasion and occupation of Iraq has created more terrorists that would have otherwise been created. It has been a great recruiting tool for Al Queda. It has turned more people against us than it has brought them to our side.

Perhaps if we leave Iraq, we can stop the wave of recruits that we've created by our occupation (and everything that term implies), and instead focus on the terrorists who are trying to strike at the US itself. And instead focus on bringing in Osama bin Laden (remember him?). And instead focus on an actual War on Terror and not create more terrorists because the President was mad that Saddam tried to kill his daddy.

After the Dem's anal probe of Reagan and Bush I, and the Republican's anal probe of Clinton, I think the public would quickly get sick of more of the same.

Do you really claim that trying to get to the bottom of Whitewater was the same or more important as trying to get to the bottom of Iran-Contra?

We've had budget deficits for the better part of 40 years now...so what is your point? Until Democrats and Republicans learn to say no to spending (uhm NEVER) we're always going to run in the red).

As to the other part...lower taxes = more take home pay = more consumption and disposable income = greater need for product and services = increased production = more jobs = increase in tax base = more income tax revenue (not to mention record low unemployment). Pretty elementary.

As for the increase in terrorists...I'm sure you have a statistical source for this claim and aren't just using Democratic talking points...

Do you really claim that trying to get to the bottom of Whitewater was the same or more important as trying to get to the bottom of Iran-Contra?

Probably not, but I do think China-gate (which was more or less swept under the rug) is AS important if Not more so, especially since our next great conflict will probably be with them or their proxies.

We've had budget deficits for the better part of 40 years now...so what is your point? Until Democrats and Republicans learn to say no to spending (uhm NEVER) we're always going to run in the red).

As to the other part...lower taxes = more take home pay = more consumption and disposable income = greater need for product and services = increased production = more jobs = more income tax revenue (not to mention record low unemployment). Pretty elementary.

As for the increase in terrorists...I'm sure you have a statistical source for this claim and aren't just using Democratic talking points...

Your delusions are cute. Deficits have rose precipitously under Reagan and Bush II, far more than any other Presidents we've ever had. As for the other part, supply side economics has been thoroughly discredited and hardly any economist even gives it the time of day anymore. Even the Wall Street Journal (bastion of Liberalism, right?) said the supply side economics ended with a whimper after the CBO numbers showed it didn't do what it was supposed to.

As for increasing terrorism, I guess I could do your XX = YY = ZZ thing and call it a proof, but I'd rather refer you to the earlier threads where a National Intelligence Estimate had acknowledged that more terrorists were being created by the Iraq War.

And the country is finally coming around to the truth... after seeing through the lies that have been fostered on them by the Administration.

Well, I guess if I'm a terrorist leader and I'm trying to attract new martyrs...er...recruits, I would want the current party and policies to stay in place in Washington since it is supposedly helping my cause...

Osama Bin Laden must be somewhere cussing.

dola...and as for the budget deficits under Reagan...sorry a Democratic Congress was writing those budgets.

Reagan actually signed a tax hike during his second term with the understanding that for every $1 in raised taxes the Dems would cut spending $2. The cut spending part of the agreement never happened.

He probably is... as Bush played right into his hands after 9/11 by ignoring the problems faced by the newly liberated Afghanistan to fight an unpopular war against Iraq. We were unlucky such a moron was elected President right before the horrors of 9/11 :(.

Yes, I'm sure Algore would have handled things so much masterfully...

He probably would have pulled a Clinton (lob a couple of cruise missles into Afghanistan and declare victory against terrorism).

FWIW, I find quite a bit about the Libertarian Party attractive, but I prefer to remain independent.

I did end up voting for the Libertarian candidate for State Treasurer in one contested race :D The other contested races, I voted Democrat because the person I thought the best candidate happened to be from that particular party.

dola...and as for the budget deficits under Reagan...sorry a Democratic Congress was writing those budgets.

Reagan actually signed a tax hike during his second term with the understanding that for every $1 in raised taxes the Dems would cut spending $2. The cut spending part of the agreement never happened.

Reagan never heard of a veto? He worked with the Dems to get his military spending passed. As for the budget deficits in the last 6 years, what is your excuse?

Yes, I'm sure Algore would have handled things so much masterfully...

He probably would have pulled a Clinton (lob a couple of cruise missles into Afghanistan and declare victory against terrorism).

Gore probably would have done far better. Invaded Afghanistan and actually stayed there trying to finish up the job. Not streach ourselves too thin by going somewhere else for no reason.

To believe Gore would do nothing than lob missles after 9/11 is highly delusional (btw, wasn't Bush the one campaigning against Clinton's "national building"... whatever happened to that? ;))

You amaze me...there are news reports about how federal tax receipts are at an all time HIGH...so much so that the budget deficit was half of what it was projected to be. It happens every time there is a tax cut -- it happened during the Kennedy administration, it happen during Reagan's term and it happened during Bush's term.
I have a better policy. Let's cut taxes for everyone, increase the revenue for the government, plus everyone gets a pony!

Question: You said before to get ready for 'writing a bigger check' to the government at tax time because the Dems will raise taxes, yet at the same time argue that the tax cuts end up with you writing a bigger check to the government. Meanwhile, every budget study says that the tax cust have cut revenue. So my question is, are you willfully deceitful or do you not know what you are talking about?

http://wcvarones.blogspot.com/2006/01/record-tax-receipts.html

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1296.html

http://www.house.gov/budget/eu56jul13-2006.pdf

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-deficit9jul09,1,5735320.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2006/09/us-treasury-sets-new-1-day-tax-receipt.html

I've supported third party candidates before, but I think you have to recognize that we have a voting system (first past the post) that penalizes third party votes and rewards strategic voting (i.e. voting for the lesser of two evils). Anyone who really wants to see viable third parties should work with the two parties, particularly at the primary stage, to promote candidates who will support implementing some sort of preference voting system. Without some procedural reform third parties will never be viable in the US.

Gore probably would have done far better. Invaded Afghanistan and actually stayed there trying to finish up the job. Not streach ourselves too thin by going somewhere else for no reason.


BTW, I do agree with you that we should have finished business in Afghanistan first. Saddam wasn't going anywhere.

BTW, I do agree with you that we should have finished business in Afghanistan first. Saddam wasn't going anywhere.

Which makes you wonder why we had to invade Iraq at all...

That's where changing people's attitudes, knowledge and perception come in. They may like it from what little they here about in the media and from their representative but they will increasingly not like the strings that will be attached. Civil liberties is much, much more than not wanting to be wiretapped or having their phone records given out, it's about how much control they can have locally that can directly influence their lives. It means making your choices regarding schools locally instead of some mandate from DC about not leaving a child behind or having ketchup as a vegetable. It also means being able to get back some of what you pay in transportation taxes without being blackmailed to a federal mandate on speed limits. The more they take from you, the more you have to beg to get your share of the pie and that comes at a price.

Wait, are you saying that the more the American people come to understand libertarianism, they will reject it? Or am I misreading you?

I've got no problem with taking out Saddam...Bush's Daddy really should have done it during the Gulf War.

I've got no problem with taking out Saddam...Bush's Daddy really should have done it during the Gulf War.

You agree then that he wasn't a threat to America's security? I mean, if he wasn't going anywhere, he couldn't have been that much of a threat, right?

Bush's Daddy couldn't have done it during the Gulf War without losing just about all of his support. He was there to liberate Kuwait, not topple Saddam. He instead decided to contain him. That's one of many reasons Bush I was a far better President than Bush II.

Containment is a failed policy in the Middle East.

Didn't fail with Saddam.... as you said, he wasn't going anywhere.

I think Saddam has proven many times he is a threat. But we didn't have to immediately move against him until Afghanistan had been better secured.

http://wcvarones.blogspot.com/2006/01/record-tax-receipts.html

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1296.html

http://www.house.gov/budget/eu56jul13-2006.pdf

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-deficit9jul09,1,5735320.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

http://donsurber.blogspot.com/2006/09/us-treasury-sets-new-1-day-tax-receipt.html

There is this thing called 'growth'. The economy grows at a certain percentage per year, which causes an increase in taxes. This natural growth of the economy causes total tax receipts to go up, even if you cut taxes. In other words, the tax cuts don't increase tax receipts, the natural growth of the economy does.

But did the Bush tax cuts increase the growth of government which would increase tax receipts?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3c/Real_gdp_per_capita.png
No, growth has been average at best, but below Clinton levels.

Over the next 10 years, total tax-cut costs will equal $3.9 trillion, reaching nearly $600 billion or 3.3 percent of the economy in 2014 alone. (These calculations include the effects of the higher interest payments caused by the tax cuts.) The resulting higher deficits will slow future economic growth, saddle future generations with sizable interest payments, and leave the nation ill-prepared not only for the retirement of baby boomers but also for responding to potential future crises — from security matters to natural or environmental disasters — the particulars of which are unknown today.
http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-sum.htm

There is no such thing as magic tax cut ponies.

Growth...ah yes...I think I spelled it out earlier

lower taxes = more take home pay = more consumption and disposable income = greater need for product and services = increased production = more jobs = increase in tax base = more income tax revenue (not to mention record low unemployment).

So Clinton had lowered taxes? That's news to... well, everyone.

And guess what...last several years economy has grown faster and unemployment has been lower than it ever was under *gasp* Clinton - the political god of the prosperous 90s....

*points to real GDP/capita graph posted above*

Wanna try again?

Oh, and btw, labor force participation trails what it was in the 1990s by about 5%, IIRC. Remember, unemployment only tracks those currently looking for work. Those that aren't, drop out of the counting.

To get back on the libertarian track, I am noticing a lot higher totals than usual for those running under the Libertarian banner. In most races, they are lucky to reach 2%. In most of the races I'm seeing, they are pulling 3-5%. A small change, but a definite uptick.

I think Libertarian Republicans are really pissed at the Conservative Christian Republicans who are running the party presently.

And guess what...last several years economy has grown faster and unemployment has been lower than it ever was under *gasp* Clinton - the political god of the prosperous 90s....

http://www.csus.edu/indiv/j/jensena/sfp/us/rec_unem.jpg

lower taxes = more take home pay

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42041000/gif/_42041256_wages_prod_416gr.gif

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

"All politics is local"

http://www.lp.org/

Most of those are 2-4% congress runs, but there are several winners there for the Libertarian Party in city and town elections. No, they probably don't stand much of a chance of winning a seat on congress, but the Libertarian Party does win some local elections every year. It's been awhile since I've looked it up, bit they are the most successful 3rd-party, holding over 600 elected positions throughout the nation (town councils, mayors, etc.). I think the Green party only has about 200. (Again, it's been awhile since I looked those numbers up)

I voted for one Libertarian candidate. But until I see better leadership and candidates, I cannot imagine the Libertarian Party winning many seats.

Disappointing experience from my first two Lib. votes (IIRC). Both the governor & lt. governors race in Georgia ended without the need of a runoff as the Lib. managed only 3'ish percent of the vote. Then again that represents nearly a doubling of their numbers from four years ago, so I don't know why I really expected much success on that front.

To dispute Bucc's turnout numbers, I know that my precinct in Ohio had 60-70% turnout in talking with the poll workers (they said I was the voter who made it 50% turnout even, and there was a line out the door when I left at 5:45 PM last night). The poll workers said that they didn't even have this high a turnout for the '04 election. Maybe people are getting more interested, or maybe people were angry this time around. But turnout was the same or up from the '04 elections from what I've seen, not down.

I live in that congressional district in KY that was mentioned in Bucc's article. I didn't vote today. I was working and I didn't try to get my absentee ballot. I would have voted for the Libertarian candidate for many of the reason's that were mentioned here. Houillion looks like he will grab about 5% of the vote, with Davis (R) retaining the seat 51-44.

I have voted strongly Republican for years, but I have been so frustrated and ticked off by the direction that Bush has lead the party. The main problem that I have is the complete lack of fiscal awareness. I really feel that this article speaks accurately about the way that many moderate republicans like myself feel. Normally I would be dissapointed by the results of the election tonight, but the party needed a wakeup call, they needed to get kicked in the ass, because they have drifted too far off the deep end, and if they want to get some of us back they need to rethink their strategies.

This sums my feelings up as well. I didn't vote because of a technical screw-up more than anything, but I'm not sure I would have voted yesterday even if I could have. I watched the coverage from about 10pm until midnight and didn't feel a sense of disappointment at all. Part of that was because I expected it, but part of it was because I thought it was best for the party in the long-run.

We'll see where this leads the party in 2008. I will vote then, but if they're throwing candidates at me (like when Mel Martinez ran for FL Senator in 2004) who run nothing but anti-gay and anti-abortion ads, they can kiss my vote goodbye. Absent some extraordinary circumstances, I don't see myself voting Democrat (at least on a national level), but I'll write in Daffy Duck or something rather than support that kind of crap yet again.

If the Dems hold on to Montana and Virginia, I'll be first in line to thank the Libertarians for possibly costing the GOP the Senate seats in both Montana and Missouri. Nice to see the GOP being cost votes by a 3rd party after 2000, when Nader lost Gore the election in Florida.

Gore didn't lose Florida, the Republicans stole it!

Disappointing experience from my first two Lib. votes (IIRC). Both the governor & lt. governors race in Georgia ended without the need of a runoff as the Lib. managed only 3'ish percent of the vote. Then again that represents nearly a doubling of their numbers from four years ago, so I don't know why I really expected much success on that front.

Shiver me timbers- Jon voted for a Libertarian? I thought (in your own words), you were the antithesis of one. Is Sonny Purdue just that toxic for you? :D

Gore didn't lose Florida, the Republicans stole it!

Well, they couldn't have stolen it if Nader hadn't taken that 2% away from Gore. :p :D

I'm a libertarian who despite many reservations voted for Bush in 2000 (I desparately did not want to see Gore win and don't regret the move), voted libertarian in 04 as Bush proved my reservations correct and Kerry was even a worse choice than Gore, and did not vote at all yesterday.

I've never voted for a Democrat for Pres. I've voted Dem for a Senator or two, and that's as far as I went. I feel like maybe I'm to the Republican Party what an independent black voter is to the demos. I've been taken for granted without anything I care about taken seriously. It's really too bad Ross Perot was a nutjob.

You do realize Clinton experienced the tech boom, right? That had a very big part.

Personally, I believe that the Presidency has a limited control over the economic conditions.

You do realize Clinton experience the tech boom, right? That had a very big part.

Personally, I believe that the Presidency has a limited control over the economic conditions.I've always felt the President can do very little to make the economy better, but boy can he do a lot to screw it up.

I've always felt the President can do very little to make the economy better, but boy can he do a lot to screw it up.

Yeap, but Congress also shares the load as well (since they have to pass any bills).

I think the key is to create an economy that supports entrepreneurs and investors.

You do realize Clinton experience the tech boom, right? That had a very big part.

Personally, I believe that the Presidency has a limited control over the economic conditions.

Agreed. Greenspan and the Fed should get a lot of credit for keeping the economy on a pretty even keel. The economy was actually flat during most of Clinton's first term (tax hikes, maybe?). It really didn't take off until the Republicans took Congress with their plan (at least in their rhetoric) of fiscal responsibility and welfare reform. Of course a lot of that heat was based on overspeculation of the value of dot coms and outright corporate reporting fraud (Enron anybody).

Of course a lot of that heat was based on overspeculation of the value of dot coms and outright corporate reporting fraud (Enron anybody).

That's about all of it. And then the triple whammy of the dot com crash, fraud discoveries, and 9/11 did as much to hurt the economy 4-5 years ago.

The Freepers and hopping mad at all those who voted Libertarian yesterday.

hxxp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1734942/posts

Heard on Limbaugh today, that by an 11% margin, people now think Republicans are the party of Big Government. GOP better learn their lesson.

Heard on Limbaugh today, that by an 11% margin, people now think Republicans are the party of Big Government. GOP better learn their lesson.

11% of his listeners, or a national poll?

It's hard to argue against it.

You're right. It is his vote to do as he chooses. And you're free to vote as you like, too. But I don't understand all the hang wringing when nothing changes. What do you expect to happen? Do you really expect a Libertarian candidate to win?

I vote Libertarian--if the two major political parties see more votes going to the Libertarian party, this will force them to make at least incremental shifts towards Libertarian position to try to claim those votes. Changes on the margins are about all we can hope for right now.

I vote Libertarian--if the two major political parties see more votes going to the Libertarian party, this will force them to make at least incremental shifts towards Libertarian position to try to claim those votes. Changes on the margins are about all we can hope for right now.

Yep. But the fact of the matter is, as a general philosophy/party platform, the Democratic Party is in favor of spending money to cure problems. In theory, anyway, that's not what the Republican Party stands for. And that's the reason why, although I may not vote Republican if they continue to stray from their philosophy, I cannot bring myself to vote Democrat for fear that they won't stray from theirs.

I'm pretty sure it's safe to say that these are the views that most people have, right? That Dems are "tax and spend" while Repubs are "fiscally responsible." And no matter what the Dems do, they will always have that label around their neck. And no matter what Repubs do, they get the benefit of the doubt. Of course, as we all know neither party is interested in shrinking the government, but Repubs get the benefit of the doubt because they talk about smaller government but don't actually following through. They might do it a little bit, but they rely on government money in their districts to make voters happy.

Now, as I see it, there's nothing that the Dems can do to win over libertarians simply because of the association with taxes and Dems. It doesn't matter that the Dems are closer to libertarians when it comes to personal liberties. It seems like libertarians completely ignore that and pay only attention to the issue of taxes. Dems can't change how they are perceived to woo voters.

So that leaves the Repubs. They might not raise taxes, but they're not cutting spending either. And can they really stay out of our personal spheres? They are clearly anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage. They also don't have a problem with spying on Americans.

I guess that leaves the question to libertarians: What's more important, taxes or personal liberties?

as the old saying goes, democrats want the government to be your mommy; republicans want it to be your daddy and libertarians want it to treat you like an adult.

I never understood this "throwing your vote away" nonsense. The point of voting is not to vote for the eventual winner, for god's sake. We're not gambling here. You're supposed to vote for the candidate that best represents your values.

I guess that leaves the question to libertarians: What's more important, taxes or personal liberties?

I am not a true(ideological) libertarian, but I lean towards fiscal issues being more important.

More than lowering taxes, we need to focus on reducing government spending and paying down the federal deficit which has increased more in the last few years than it has in all of American history before Bush's term. Also, I do not think that the tax cuts for the top tax brackets have improved the economy.

I don't think you can call Democrats the party of civil liberties, though. What did they do to stop the Patriot Act and other bills that have severely undermined our civil liberties? The Democrats have folded on the important issues while championing gay marriage rights and abortion rights(which are really under the jurisdiction of the judicial branch).

Admittedly, the Democrats are the lesser of two evils right now, but I think voting for Libertarian platform is more +EV for me, especially since I live in CA where the Democrats are a lock anyway.

More than lowering taxes, we need to focus on reducing government spending and paying down the federal deficit which has increased more in the last few years than it has in all of American history before Bush's term. Also, I do not think that the tax cuts for the top tax brackets have improved the economy.

I'm with you on this.

I don't think you can call Democrats the party of civil liberties, though. What did they do to stop the Patriot Act and other bills that have severely undermined our civil liberties? The Democrats have folded on the important issues while championing gay marriage rights and abortion rights(which are really under the jurisdiction of the

To be fair, what could they do to stop the Patriot Act? Repubs controlled Congress. They could have raised more of a stink, but in the aftermath of 9/11 doing that would have been political suicide and it wouldn't have changed anything. I wish they would have shown more backbone and hopefully they will now that they're in power.

To be fair, what could they do to stop the Patriot Act? Repubs controlled Congress. They could have raised more of a stink, but in the aftermath of 9/11 doing that would have been political suicide and it wouldn't have changed anything. I wish they would have shown more backbone and hopefully they will now that they're in power.

THey could have fillibustered it, but none of them even read it--they just blindly passed it. What results have the Democrats produced that give them the right to claim they are the champion of civil liberties aside from being less active in completely destroying them than the Republicans have been in the last two terms.

Do you not remember the atmosphere after 9/11? How could anyone oppose that act and stand any chance of being re-elected?

Well that's kind of why people who vote Libertarian do ;). Rather vote for someone with a spine than those who only think of their political future. After all, if they are willing to forget about civil liberties then to protect their seat what other future crisis are they willing to give up liberties for?

Most libertarians I've met have been more willing to be right than win.

Most libertarians I've met have been more willing to be right than win.

Which explains why they are on the outside looking in. Sometimes you have to make decisions you don't like so you can live to fight another day.

Libertarians ain't dying because an election result didn't go their way... jeez.

Do you not remember the atmosphere after 9/11? How could anyone oppose that act and stand any chance of being re-elected?

that's a copout. have you heard of russ feingold?

Yeah, so? One guy voted against it? I don't know the makeup of his electorate. Are they mainly liberal? If so, then he could get away with a vote like that. Most Dems don't have that luxury.

Which explains why they are on the outside looking in. Sometimes you have to make decisions you don't like so you can live to fight another day.

What you seem to be suggesting is simply not fighting at all.

What you seem to be suggesting is simply not fighting at all.

Exactly... and that's what he wants. He wants those votes to march lockstep with his party... and not have to do the work to get it.

Yeah, so? One guy voted against it? I don't know the makeup of his electorate. Are they mainly liberal? If so, then he could get away with a vote like that. Most Dems don't have that luxury.

They're really not. WI is a pretty well-balanced state, a battleground state if you will. Feingold didn't have any luxury, he just did what he thought was right and trusted the voters to back him up. Feingold simply has a spine. None of the rest of the party did at the time. It was not the Democratic Party's finest hour...

What you seem to be suggesting is simply not fighting at all.

Not at all. I wish the Dems would have fought against the Patriot Act. I wished they would have stood up against the war in Iraq. The last few years I haven't been pleased with the Democratic Party. Having said that, while having values are great and all, what good are they when you're voted out of Congress? If your electorate is calling for you to vote on the Patriot Act, are you supposed to ignore them? Don't we elect people to be our voice in Washington?

Exactly... and that's what he wants. He wants those votes to march lockstep with his party... and not have to do the work to get it.

I'm glad you know exactly what I want. Yes, I want nothing more than the American public to be Democratic zombies and who never stray from voting party lines. :rolleyes:

I'm glad you know exactly what I want. Yes, I want nothing more than the American public to be Democratic zombies and who never stray from voting party lines. :rolleyes:

Well that's exactly what it sounds like. We ain't the ones chastizing people for voting for candidates that they actually believe in rather than "hold your nose" two-headed monster candidates.

I'm sorry if I come across that way. I honestly don't understand the action of voting for a candidate that you absolutely know doesn't have a chance to win and then gripe that the main candidates don't address your issues.

Agreed. Greenspan and the Fed should get a lot of credit for keeping the economy on a pretty even keel. The economy was actually flat during most of Clinton's first term (tax hikes, maybe?). It really didn't take off until the Republicans took Congress with their plan (at least in their rhetoric) of fiscal responsibility and welfare reform.
% Growth in Real GDP (src (http://eh.net/hmit/gdp/))
1994 4.02
1995 2.50
1996 3.70
1997 4.50
1998 4.18
1999 4.45
2000 3.66
2001 0.75
2002 1.60
2003 2.51
2004 3.91
2005 3.22

The final full year of Dem control of congress had an increase of 4.02%, higher than any year of the Bush presidency. This is the time period that you call 'flat'. Upon GOP takeover of congress, their message of fiscal responsibility and welfare reform resulted in a forty percent drop in growth to 2.50%. This is what you call the economy 'taking off'.

It was incredibly easy to enact the tax cuts. Not so much when it came to cutting services and programs.

Just as easy to raise taxes.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-11-10T034240Z_01_N09228185_RTRIDST_0_ECONOMY-RUBIN.XML

% Growth in Real GDP (src (http://eh.net/hmit/gdp/))
1994 4.02
1995 2.50
1996 3.70
1997 4.50
1998 4.18
1999 4.45
2000 3.66
2001 0.75
2002 1.60
2003 2.51
2004 3.91
2005 3.22

The final full year of Dem control of congress had an increase of 4.02%, higher than any year of the Bush presidency. This is the time period that you call 'flat'. Upon GOP takeover of congress, their message of fiscal responsibility and welfare reform resulted in a forty percent drop in growth to 2.50%. This is what you call the economy 'taking off'.


GDP percent GDP percent GDP in GDP in
change based change based billions of billions of
on current on chained current chained 2000
dollars 2000 dollars dollars dollars

1980 8.8 -0.2 2,789.5 5,161.7
1981 12.2 2.5 3,128.4 5,291.7
1982 4.0 -1.9 3,255.0 5,189.3
1983 8.7 4.5 3,536.7 5,423.8
1984 11.2 7.2 3,933.2 5,813.6
1985 7.3 4.1 4,220.3 6,053.7
1986 5.7 3.5 4,462.8 6,263.6
1987 6.2 3.4 4,739.5 6,475.1
1988 7.7 4.1 5,103.8 6,742.7
1989 7.5 3.5 5,484.4 6,981.4
1990 5.8 1.9 5,803.1 7,112.5
1991 3.3 -0.2 5,995.9 7,100.5
1992 5.7 3.3 6,337.7 7,336.6
1993 5.0 2.7 6,657.4 7,532.7
1994 6.2 4.0 7,072.2 7,835.5
1995 4.6 2.5 7,397.7 8,031.7
1996 5.7 3.7 7,816.9 8,328.9
1997 6.2 4.5 8,304.3 8,703.5
1998 5.3 4.2 8,747.0 9,066.9
1999 6.0 4.5 9,268.4 9,470.3
2000 5.9 3.7 9,817.0 9,817.0
2001 3.2 0.8 10,128.0 9,890.7
2002 3.4 1.6 10,469.6 10,048.8
2003 4.7 2.5 10,960.8 10,301.0
2004 6.9 3.9 11,712.5 10,703.5
2005 8.8 3.2 12,455.8 11,048.6


Clinton/Dem. Congress 1993-1994 avg. GDP % growth 3.4%
Clinton/Rep. Congress 1995-2000 avg. GDP % growth 3.9%

If you want to use GDP as the sole measure, the economy really took after the Republicans held their congressional gains following the '96 elections.

And if you want to crow about GDP growth, Clinton never got close to sniffing Reagan's best "trickle-down" year (1984).

Source (http://bea.gov/bea/dn/home/gdp.htm)

Yeah, so? One guy voted against it? I don't know the makeup of his electorate. Are they mainly liberal? If so, then he could get away with a vote like that. Most Dems don't have that luxury.

My suspicions are confirmed: you have no idea what you're talking about. Thanks for wasting everyone's time in this thread.

My suspicions are confirmed: you have no idea what you're talking about. Thanks for wasting everyone's time in this thread.

Wow. That's mighty kind of you. I'm so sorry I wasted your valuable time on a MESSAGE BOARD ABOUT A TEXT-SIM FOOTBALL GAME.

Heaven forbid you have a discussion with someone who disagrees with your viewpoint. :rolleyes: