Libertarians--could this be their year?

[albionmoonlight]

This board has a fair number of guys who fashion themselves as conservatives with a libertarian bent, so I thought that it might be a good place to ask the question.

This election season, I have run into several (to be more precise, three) of my friends who are solid Republicans/conservatives who are seriously thinking of voting libertarian. They beleive that Bush and the current Republican administration has gotten too far from the ideals that attract them to the Republican party. In particular, they dislike the Patriot Act's encroachment on civil rights; the increased federal spending under Bush; and the desire to control what goes on in people's personal lives (i.e. sodomy laws, FMA, etc.). At the same time, they are staunch opponents of the welfare state and would not vote for a Mass. Democrat if their lives depended on it.

All of them are in states that will not be "in play" in this election, so there is no chance that their vote will make a difference between Bush and Kerry. The belief is that a strong showing by the libertarians in this election may cause the Republican party to realize that they need to cater to that aspect of their base in the future.

Considering how much mudslinging this campaign promises, and considering how people in non-swing states probably have a pretty good idea of what their vote means after the last election, I could see several people with a libertarian bent following that lead and voting libertarian.

Am I crazy to think this, or do the Libertarians actually have an opportunity to pick up a larger percentage of the vote than normal this year?

(Note--I realize that the libertarians will not pick up enough votes to present a viable challenge to the two parties. But do you think that they may pick up enough to make some noise?)

[SirFozzie]

Not more then 1-2% in any state I think. Even in the non"In-Play" States, both sides are mobilizing like never before.

[Ksyrup]

I'm in an "in play" state, and could be persuaded to vote Libertarian at some point, but there's no way I'd essentially cast a vote for Kerry by voting for a party that has no chance. And that's not to mention the fact that the Libertarian Party probably has more ideas/ideals that I disagree with than the current administration.

Not me, not this election. If Kerry wins, and it's due in part to Florida, I don't want that on my conscience.

You libs considering voting for Nader, though, don't let me sway you in any way.

[clintl]

I'm not in the camp that you are describing, obviously, but I think probably not. To do that, the Libertarians need what the Greens had last time around - someone with national name recognition.

[sachmo71]

I'm waiting for the return of the Bull Moose party.

[miked]

I was actually thinking of voting Whig.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

I'm waiting for the return of the Bull Moose party.

Bull moose became a drinking club

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by clintl

I'm not in the camp that you are describing, obviously, but I think probably not. To do that, the Libertarians need what the Greens had last time around - someone with national name recognition.

Like Abraham Lincoln

[Franklinnoble]

I'm registered Know-Nothing.

[duckman]

I've been intrigued by the Libertarians because they are very much against encroachment of civil liberties. I think the government puts too many restrictions what we can say, do, or watch that I like to have a voice on that very subject. We have become a "closed" society and it is very disturbing.

I agree with Ksyrup that I rather vote for Bush and keep Kerry out of office than give my vote to a party who doesn't have a real shot (at this time).

[Desnudo]

Living in Washington state I'll have no choice but to vote for President Bush, even though I strongly disagree with a lot of his policies and general bent. Were I still living in Massachusetts I'd definitely vote Libertarian.

[CamEdwards]

the Republicans say what I believe (to a very large extent), but sometimes have problems living up to the party platform.

The libertarians say what I belieive (to a lesser extent), and I won't vote for a libertarian because I'm afraid they'd actually live up to the party platform on open borders.

That plank just kills any interest I have in voting Libertarian.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

the Republicans say what I believe (to a very large extent), but sometimes have problems living up to the party platform.

The libertarians say what I belieive (to a lesser extent), and I won't vote for a libertarian because I'm afraid they'd actually live up to the party platform on open borders.

That plank just kills any interest I have in voting Libertarian.

The border between Virginia and Maryland?

[Fritz]

carpetbaggers go home!

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

The border between Virginia and Maryland?

I think the border's shifted south to the Rappahanock River by now. I've heard NoVa being referred to as "enemy-occupied" Virginia on several occassions.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

I think the border's shifted south to the Rappahanock River by now. I've heard NoVa being referred to as "enemy-occupied" Virginia on several occassions.

It's a heckuva lot more liberal than what I'm used to. I actually had a kid from the DNC come to my door the other day asking if I'd "help defeat President Bush".

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

It's a heckuva lot more liberal than what I'm used to. I actually had a kid from the DNC come to my door the other day asking if I'd "help defeat President Bush".

I assume that you chased him off of your property with your special issue NRAnews.com gold plated revolver.

[albionmoonlight]

dola--

speaking of. . . . is that you live on NRAnews.com homepage right now? I didn't know that you had streaming video/audio.

[Fritz]

Cam

Come for a visit son. I will show you conservative.

[Fritz]

albion - stay tuned to him for a while. Cam has a good show, even if you dont like some of the segments.

[albionmoonlight]

I'm having to mute him every so often as the bossman walks by--but I am interested. As long as he is making good arguments, I don't need to agree with it to like it.

(And, for what little it is worth, I betray my general liberal leanings on the gun control issue. I am for gun rights and less government control. The way I see it, the bill of rights was designed by the founding fathers to protect our individual liberties against government encroachment. I am for expansive readings of all of the indvidual liberties contained therein. Slippery slope alert if we start to selectively remove them.).

[hoosierdude]

At least you guys will vote, too many people just decide NOT to vote at all, and I think a national referendum of None of the Above would be a great thing. You might see a lot of strong sentiment for that option.

There has been a few elections in my time I wish I had that option.

In the last 20 years, I have voted off party (not the big two) as much as I have on the two parties. I have voted libertarian at least 3 times as a protest vote. I feel like my vote wasn't wasted, a wasted vote is someone that doesn't vote at all. If you are registered and haven't voted in 10 yrs, then you should be purged from the rolls.

I am a registered right winger, and locally both major parties will get you to the polls if you cannot make it there under your own power.. Wish they had that 20 years ago!

[Franklinnoble]

My office actually blocks NRAnews.com. Sheesh.

Actually, they block this site, too.

Lucky for you guys I'm such a clever bastard, huh?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by hoosierdude

I feel like my vote wasn't wasted, a wasted vote is someone that doesn't vote at all.

I agree. But I think such a vote is largely a vote for the guy you would least like to see win, which is why I can't, in good conscience, vote for anyone other than Bush.

[GrantDawg]

Shoot, open immigration may make me a libertarian. Well, not really, but it is not that bad an idea. There are other platforms planks that bug me more.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

This election season, I have run into several (to be more precise, three) of my friends who are solid Republicans/conservatives who are seriously thinking of voting libertarian. They beleive that Bush and the current Republican administration has gotten too far from the ideals that attract them to the Republican party. In particular, they dislike the Patriot Act's encroachment on civil rights; the increased federal spending under Bush; and the desire to control what goes on in people's personal lives (i.e. sodomy laws, FMA, etc.). At the same time, they are staunch opponents of the welfare state and would not vote for a Mass. Democrat if their lives depended on it.

All of them are in states that will not be "in play" in this election, so there is no chance that their vote will make a difference between Bush and Kerry.

You just described my situation almost perfectly. The hell of it is, while voting for a Libertarian candidate is appealing, I'm not convinced that California is completely out of play this year. I know Ahnuld isn't Bush, but he did have that big R next to his name on the ballot last year, and he won overwhelmingly, which tells me that if the Republican base gets as mobilized out here this year as it did for the recall election, Bush could have a shot at taking California from Kerry.

Kerry, of course, I do not want under any circumstances.

So do I hold my nose and vote for the candidate who's let me down in recent months, or do I say 'screw it,' vote my conscience, and hope for a miracle?

[clintl]

Social conservatives have no chance at a top of the ticket victory in California. Republicans can win, but they have to social moderates or liberals like Arnold and Pete Wilson. Social conservativism just doesn't play in California except in a few select localities. Plus, Bush has burned too many bridges during his presidency. There is no way, absent a total Kerry collapse nationwide, that Bush has a chance to win here.

[sabotai]

The thing that seems weird to me is that when elections come up, people are always talking about "voting to keep the other guy out" as an excuse not to vote libertarian (or green).

But that's just one election. What about local elections? What about state elections? Elections for congressmen? Will you people who want to keep a democrat out of the white house vote libertarian on local elections or for other state and federal elections?

[Ksyrup]

We barely have Republicans running for office in Leon County, let alone Libertarians. In fact, regardless of party, this coming election, we hardly have any opposition to the incumbent at all. But I'd be much more willing to vote Libertarian in a local election, to answer your question.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

the Republicans say what I believe (to a very large extent), but sometimes have problems living up to the party platform.

The libertarians say what I belieive (to a lesser extent), and I won't vote for a libertarian because I'm afraid they'd actually live up to the party platform on open borders.

That plank just kills any interest I have in voting Libertarian.

The Libertarians are idealists. There are a number of things they support that simply wouldn't work in the real world. I'm sympathetic to some of their views on civil liberties and such, but I think a lot of their economic and defense policy views are not realistic.

[Sharpieman]

Why would you vote to put a person in government who wants nothing to do with government?

[SackAttack]

Because it beats putting somebody in office who wants to expand government's role in order to more deeply entrench himself in power?

[clintl]

I won't vote or support Libertarian because I think the end result of Libertarian government would be a return to feudalism. Only the wealthy would have any freedom; everyone else would be taking orders from private sector tyrants, with no check on their power.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by clintl

I won't vote or support Libertarian because I think the end result of Libertarian government would be a return to feudalism. Only the wealthy would have any freedom; everyone else would be taking orders from private sector tyrants, with no check on their power.

That sounds pretty sweet to me.

[Sharpieman]

I wouldn't vote Libertarian for similar reasons. We've seen the effects of deregulation, and its not pretty. Privatization is absolutely out of the question when it comes to education, healthcare and government services. With a Libertarian government, the image of 2 America's would be taken to a new level. There would be no middle class, just the very rich and the very poor.

[Huckleberry]

Do any of the Republicans on this board actually believe that the Republicans in Washington are against big government anymore?

hxxp://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-087es.html

Originally Posted by CATO Institute

Although defense spending has increased in response to the war on terrorism, President Bush has made little attempt to restrain nondefense spending to offset the higher Pentagon budget. Nondefense discretionary outlays will increase about 36 percent during President Bush's first term in office. Congress has failed to contain the administration's overspending and has added new spending of its own. Republicans have clearly forfeited any claim of being the fiscally responsible party in Washington.

I despise both parties in Washington.

Democrats = morons who spend too much and take too much to cover it
Republicans = morons who spend too much and don't take in enough to cover it

[Sharpieman]

dola, however, I do encourage those who want to vote Libertarian to do so.

[Huckleberry]

Ha! I finally wrecked a dola!

[Sharpieman]

Why God? Why?

[Buccaneer]

I'll repeat what I said a few weeks ago

---

I will be voting for a libertarian-minded candidate. That won't mean the actual Libertarian candidate but it certainly won't be Kerry and probably not Bush. But we all (including me) make the mistake of giving the President too much role on budgets/defecits and govt intrusions whereas it is Congress that actually controls, changes, adds (they don't delete) and passes such legislations.

To me, national security and fighting terrorism are more important than all other issues combined. More should be done, esp. in continuing the fight against terrorists and terrorism-related group - preferrably on their ground, instead of here; and in getting the domestic agencies to work better on intelligence and communications. In that regards, I believe the current administration (or whatever it becomes after re-election) will be far better than a Kerry or Democratic administration. I learn from history and saw what Clinton and his administration did in these critical areas. Kerry went along and voted against all major legislation (as reported somewhere) that would have helped strengthened our hand in fighting terrorism, terrorists and specific terrorist acts.

In conclusion, Bush will likely win Colorado under most scenarios. I would vote for Bush before I would vote for Kerry but will likely not be voting for either unless I really have to.

---

In thinking about the first post, I would prefer to call myself a "libertarian with a conservative bent" as oppose to the other way around. I just don't want to be pigeon-holed into the 'conservative' group. I favor more of the Libertarian platform than I do the GOP platform with the exception of the so-call war on terrorism, including immigration controls.

So maybe I'll hold my nose and vote for Bush but be agressive in voting for libertarians or libertarian-minded candidates for all other offices, esp. Congress and the legislatures - where the ideals of libertarianism can really make a difference, not the Executive Branch.

[sabotai]

Congress and the legislatures - where the ideals of libertarianism can really make a difference, not the Executive Branch

Which is basically why I asked. It seems like everyone focuses on the presidential election when it's local and state elections that will help make a difference. Not if the libs get 2% more than last time.