The Myth of Republican Conservatism

Well, if one were silly enough to vote Libertarian, one would be voting for a platform that wants Roe v. Wade upheld and a platform that says that government should not regulate marriage (meaning that same-sex marriage and polygamous marriage should be allowed).

The Constitution Party wants to end foreign aid and calls, along with the Communist Party, the war in Iraq illegal. They also want to return to a pre-civil war system of counting votes.

The third parties such as the Libertarian are so far out of the mainstream with candidates like Badnarik that they are only fringe elements. It amuses me personally that the Constitution Party can sit down to eat and fellowship with the Libertarians and their pro-abortion, pro-same-sex marriage candidates and writers.

 

The way I learned politics, we don't have a 3RD PARTY in this (national) election. The Libertarian, Consitution, Green, et al, parties are minor parties. They do not present an effective challenge to the major parties, and in most states or locales their vote accumulation is expected to be less than the margin of victory of the winning major party. But a 3rd party does present a challenge/obstacle to one or both of the major parties and can change the election outcome and virtually force one (or both) major parties to accept much of their platform in order to force resolution in the upcoming or future elections. The Populists of 1896 and the American Independent Party of 1968 are 2 examples of 3rd parties, while every election has minor parties, most of which are small and ignored.

There are also faction parties which can be even more influential than 3rd parties. These are dissatisfied wings of a major party who split and nominate their own candidate(s), as the Progressive Republicans ("Bullmoose"} of 1912 and the States' Rights Democrats ("Dixiecrats") of 1948. T. Roosevelt's "Bullmoose" run in 1912 did force changes in the Republican party for more action in regards to trusts and interior development because it took enough votes away to put a Democrat in office. But the Dixiecrats only showed that the Democratic Party can win a national election without carrying the Solid South, which made the Democrats more liberal nationally.

What we see these days in the Republican Party is their trying to take enough of the important issues to staunch conservatives to keep that wing of the party from splitting, while the Democrats have decided they can do without the pro-capitalist anti-abortion vote.

 

"NY laws allows a candidate to count votes from all lines he may be on, (eg Republician, Conservative, Right-to-life, Constitution.)"

That appears that the groups you mention are just special interest splitoffs. Or do you mean something other than each of these 'parties' have Bush as their candidate?

 

What is really strange is the Constitution Party climbing into bed with the pro-abortion, pro-same-sex marriage Libertarian Party and allowing the Libertarian Party to pass itself off as conservative. The Constitution Party would sell their souls for a couple of votes and a smile. What does pro-live have to do with pro-abortion? What does Christian have to do with same-sex marriage?

Hey, Constitution Party, get out of bed with the Libertarians! You are making people sick.

 

In contrast to the GOP supporting Clinton style Republicans like Governor Arnold and Pro Abortion politicians like Spector, Guilliana, Pataki, Whitman, Hutchingston?

The GOP needs to return to being a party of ideology rather than the Big Tent party. As long as Conservative Republicans support the GOP line nothing will change.

 

The GOP is a big-tent party willy nilly. Why in Illinois they are even running a Maryland bombastic carpetbagger for Senate.

As for the Libertarians, they nominated Badnarik. The Constitution Party should get out of bed with the Badnarik crowd if they want to be seen as little more than political opportunists from the far right. They are the ones claiming to be pure while sleeping in the Libertarian bed. Pure what?

 

Maybe they're the Libertution party? or Constiterian party?

 

Everyone thinks that the Constitution Party is in bed with the Libertarian Party. The Constitution Party has squandered the summer quoting Libertarian Party sources about "wrongs" of the GOP from Libertarian Party sources. The Constitution Party has quoted Lew Rockwell several times in the last month. Never mind that the Libertarians advocate abortion on demand and allowing same-sex marriages--they are the bedmates of the Constitution Party. We are told that the Libertarians are close to the Constitution Party--I guess in that both parties love money and are modernists.

 

A sizable portion of libertarians and Libertarians are pro-life and against the government sanctioning homosexual "marriages".

But I know you broadbrush everyone and every organization, cmg.

 

Nice try, Ken. I am reading what their platform says and what Badnarik himself says. Badnarik evidently speaks for the majority of Libertarians since they nominated him as their candidate for President. By the way, his mother is running for Lt. Gov. in the state of Indiana.

I don't see how Peroutka can stand to be in bed with Badnarik--is it love?

I would urge pro-life and anti-same-sex-marriage Libertarians to join the GOP. Badnarik is bad news.

 

I said a sizable portion of libertarians and Libertarians were pro-life and against the government sanctioning homosexual "marriage". I did not say a majority were.

Sometimes I am concerned about your reading comprehension skills, cmg.

 

I'd be curious as to how you arrived at this conclusion Ken. If there are numbers that show it, I'd like to see them. The Liberterians I know are fairly consistently pro-abortion and have no problem with govt sacntioning of gay marriage.