Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, May 2, 2008.
An interesting article.
Great point by Boaz.
Why would Libertarians want to be in the Republican Party?
We don't. Equivocally, why would social conservatives support a VP who supports gay marraige, a Secretary of Sate (Powell) who supported abortion, and a President that betrayed them on immigration, campaign finance reform, and fiscal discipline?
Pragmatism, my friend: politics is the art of compromise.
From what source did you get this info?
I imagine this is not wekk known by many.
They do not the President has lost much support.
Now what is the real agenda?
Gee, Revmitchell, dude has a lesbian daughter... it's called common sense. But for you it can be aptly labeled MSNBC:
"Cheney at odds with Bush on gay marriage."
Regardless, the point is that we're all stuck in some party and that whichever party we're stuck in we probably don't much prefer it. So, to get back to the initial question of libertarians 'wanting' to support the GOP, we don't. Do you? Not likely. Most of the time I do so, and I imagine you do the same. ::shrug:: Such is life.
The article is a great source. Simply being related to one is not evidence of support.
Okay, here it is, direct from the Veepster's mouth:
(Outrageous fonts mine.)
Btw, handling this issue at the state level is also opposed to Bush's constitutional amendment federalizing the issue.
But, honestly, Revmitchell, why??? I don't think you disagree with my assertion that, "politics is the art of compromise," and I don't suspect you're jazzed about voting for McCain. So... why are we having this debate? We all support things we aren't proud of, at least vicariously. I don't want to: you don't either.
I am not debating you on anything. I just asked you a question that you still havent answered but only pointed to what others are doing.
They are there so that shoots down that answer. Now what is their agenda? This is what has not been answered.
I would think to advance libertarianism as much as possible.
ahh! I see. Why do it under a false name? Why not advance it as a liberatarian?
Why not advance social conservatism under the Constitution Party? Why pretend to agree with blah, blah, blah, when you don't? See how this works both ways?
Dude, what part of, "politics is the art of compromise," are you missing here? We're not pretending to like/support everything the GOP does, hence we openly refer to ourselves as libertarians. It's simply a matter of pragmatism.
Libertarians pretty much agree with conservatives on economic issues. Since we have a two party system in practical terms folks of all political ideologies - conservative, libertarian, liberal, populists, as well as moderates - tend to align themselves with one of the two major parties in order to have relevancy.
Libertarians and social conservatives made up the bulk of the Reagan coalition during the 1980s. President Reagan had quite a few libertarians in his administration.
The social conservative/libertarian alliance in the Republican Party fractured when the social conservatives started backing foreign adventurism(the Iraq War) and the Patriot Act.
Why not work to make the libertatians as prominent as repubs and Dems? When you register as a Repub you are saying you are a republican. When really you are a Libertarian. Pretty dishonest
Again, I could throw every question back at you in regards to the Constitution Party or some other obscure platform. But I shall kindly refrain if you'll do likewise. Agreed?
The article is talking about the libertarian ideology, not the Libertarian Party. Very few libertarians vote for the Libertarian Party candidate and a lot fewer are members of the Libertarian Party.
Simply being a Republican does not indicate what one's political ideology is any more than simply being a Democrat does. Both of the major parties are coalitions of various political viewpoints.