Thought on the Walorski/Donnelly run.

[rambone]

You distract enough votes away from libertarian republicans to keep liberal democrats empowered when you could be working with people who will help empower your ideals without your label and can effect the actual change that you say you want to have.

As somebody mentioned, the Republican establishment wants nothing more than to keep libertarians out. They'd rather that Democrats enter their party and call themselves Republicans. Without a 3rd party, a lot of people might not vote at all.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Probably the same thing that's taking you so long to figure out that posting as you do is more likely to anger the very people you want to win to your cause. I am a libertarian. Many of the people here on INGO who are also libertarians see that Jackie Walorski would have been the better option. I made it clear, if you look back, that I would have voted for her and quite a few others did also.

While you're holding onto all that anger at [STRIKE]l[/STRIKE]Libertarians, though, make sure you share it equally with the Republicans who didn't come out to vote, with the political watchers who told people to vote for Donnelly instead of Jackie. If you vote straight ticket Republican and think we should also, I hope you'll be understanding when Lugar is voted back in in two years that it is as much your fault as it was four years ago when he got into office and willing to accept the blame that is due you. If he's running again, I sincerely hope that there's a Libertarian running, because I see no reason at this point in time that I would vote for anyone else... and I will do so unapologetically.

Blessings,
Bill

FIFY

I read Tim's post another way Bill. I think there are a lot of libertarians on this forum (myself included). We believe in the cause of liberty. We believe in personal responsibility and individualism. We believe you make your own stars, be they the North Star or a dying comet. We believe in rights. We believe we are our brother's keeper because we choose to be. We want government to be no larger than absolutely necessary. But we also understand that outside forces and common law doctrines can and necessarily will curtail rights at times. Not that we like it, but that we understand and accept it will occur with or without our permission.

Fewer, more angry, and more absolutist are the Libertarians among us. Believing primarily in the same things, but to extremes. That God bless them hold positions so contrary to the public will that they are viewed as crackpots. Angry to an extent that they are willing to sacrifice the good for for the hopelessness of attaining the great. libertarians like me don't understand a thought process that allows failure is OK as long as it was principled.

I find many Libertarians to be just as academic, elitist, smarny, confrontational, and loathing of disagreement as progressives. Unyielding to the core. The issues are different. The attitude the same.

I see many Libertarians on this forum as feeling enlightened and superior to the unwashed masses. So Libertarians stand on an extreme fringe and wonder why the rest of the heathens don't join you. You haven't left any room for us to. You guys stomp your feet every time someone raises the issues of Libertarians supporting drugs. You yourself say drugs aren't the issue. I beg to differ. So does 96% of Americans. Drugs are the issue. Libertarians are stuck on some assumed but imaginary right, while the rest of society falls squarely in the it just sounds like a bad idea because of x y or z. You are trying to sell the idea of change with the idea of change. That is never going to work.

Again on illegal immigration, the Libertarian position is unacceptable. It plainly favors open borders. I've said so often. I'm continually told that I am purposefully distorting the platform position (even after quoting it). But no one can or will explain it so that an idiot Ivy League graduate like me can understand it. Within your own ranks there is descent over the acceptability of the immigration plank. Yet blame is immediately cast on Republicrats in a veiled yet unsuccessful attempt to blame shift.

On foreign matters, Libertarians often quote out of context one liners by Thomas Jefferson. By the way the first appointed ambassador to France. Without the relationships he forged and cultivated there the Lousiana Purchase would never have happened and we would still be the United States of the East Coast. The rest of us believe that staying close to the rest of the world is good. Some because they want a one world government. Others, libertarians like myself, because it is a way to keep our friends close and enemies closer. Like progressives, Libertarians summarily dismiss as one-worlders anyone who believes that we should forge alliances, treaties and understandings.

The Communists finally understood that they couldn't achieve their goals from outside the process, and have coopted the Democrat party. When with the Libertarians do the same?

So back to the point. Tim's point is a good one that can be surmised in two questions. Why allow perfect to be the enemy of good? Why not work within the system to destroy and reshape it?

 

[Delmar]

And I think that anyone who votes 3 party or democrat, even for "blue dog democrats" helps put people like Pelosi & Reid in leadership positions & helps put people like Sotomayor & Kagan on the Supreme Court.

I vote for the candidate, period! There is no way I was going to vote for Dan Coats (who I am certain would have rubber stamped Sotomayor & Kagan the way Lugar did, anyway) but I would have voted for Walorski, if I lived in the right district.

 

[Bill of Rights]

FIFY

I read Tim's post another way Bill. I think there are a lot of libertarians on this forum (myself included). We believe in the cause of liberty. We believe in personal responsibility and individualism. We believe you make your own stars, be they the North Star or a dying comet. We believe in rights. We believe we are our brother's keeper because we choose to be. We want government to be no larger than absolutely necessary. But we also understand that outside forces and common law doctrines can and necessarily will curtail rights at times. Not that we like it, but that we understand and accept it will occur with or without our permission.

Fewer, more angry, and more absolutist are the Libertarians among us. Believing primarily in the same things, but to extremes. That God bless them hold positions so contrary to the public will that they are viewed as crackpots. Angry to an extent that they are willing to sacrifice the good for for the hopelessness of attaining the great. libertarians like me don't understand a thought process that allows failure is OK as long as it was principled.

I find many Libertarians to be just as academic, elitist, smarny, confrontational, and loathing of disagreement as progressives. Unyielding to the core. The issues are different. The attitude the same.

I see many Libertarians on this forum as feeling enlightened and superior to the unwashed masses. So Libertarians stand on an extreme fringe and wonder why the rest of the heathens don't join you. You haven't left any room for us to. You guys stomp your feet every time someone raises the issues of Libertarians supporting drugs. You yourself say drugs aren't the issue. I beg to differ. So does 96% of Americans. Drugs are the issue. Libertarians are stuck on some assumed but imaginary right, while the rest of society falls squarely in the it just sounds like a bad idea because of x y or z. You are trying to sell the idea of change with the idea of change. That is never going to work.

Again on illegal immigration, the Libertarian position is unacceptable. It plainly favors open borders. I've said so often. I'm continually told that I am purposefully distorting the platform position (even after quoting it). But no one can or will explain it so that an idiot Ivy League graduate like me can understand it. Within your own ranks there is descent over the acceptability of the immigration plank. Yet blame is immediately cast on Republicrats in a veiled yet unsuccessful attempt to blame shift.

On foreign matters, Libertarians often quote out of context one liners by Thomas Jefferson. By the way the first appointed ambassador to France. Without the relationships he forged and cultivated there the Lousiana Purchase would never have happened and we would still be the United States of the East Coast. The rest of us believe that staying close to the rest of the world is good. Some because they want a one world government. Others, libertarians like myself, because it is a way to keep our friends close and enemies closer. Like progressives, Libertarians summarily dismiss as one-worlders anyone who believes that we should forge alliances, treaties and understandings.

The Communists finally understood that they couldn't achieve their goals from outside the process, and have coopted the Democrat party. When with the Libertarians do the same?

So back to the point. Tim's point is a good one that can be surmised in two questions. Why allow perfect to be the enemy of good? Why not work within the system to destroy and reshape it?

It was not accidental that I capitalized or did not do so the word "libertarian" in that post, in any instance. I thought carefully on each one: "Am I speaking of the Libertarian Party or am I speaking of libertarian beliefs?" I can claim some measure of lower-case belief in (representative)democracy, in support of the Republic (that is, republican), and of course, libertarian. I am most emphatically not a member of the latter party. Until this election, I tried to play that Party-politics game. I am still an elected precinct committeeman and an appointed state delegate. I cannot, in good conscience, however, do that anymore. By being a Party official, I am saying that the majority of my votes will be for people in that party. I cannot honestly make that claim because I have no control over who the party will choose to nominate. I know that the LP chooses its candidates at their convention, not by a small group pre-selecting them. When I went to the meeting of delegates, the so-called "convention", it was no such thing; there was no competition. There was no choice. In fact, I found out there that a few years ago, when Dr. Paul's supporters got chosen as delegates and tried to choose good, libertarian-minded candidates, they were barely stopped and the party leaders made changes of some type (I'm not sure the details of that- perhaps the whole pre-selecting thing) to intentionally prevent that from happening again. I don't see a possibility of change from within the GOP anymore, unless we can get people to play the game and get themselves into positions of power without revealing their true agenda. Show me how to change that and you may get me to try again, but as of now, I can only see voting for a self-identified "Republican" if they are a libertarian at heart.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[photoshooter]

Well... the naysayers will be glad to know that the Constitution Party is attempting a comeback in the State of Indiana.

Here's the nationwide platform: Constitution Party Platform

It appears that their platform is similar to the Libertarian Party - but with a Bible-Belt We Want Our Religious and Moral issues bent.

The one impediment to them becoming a factor is the need to gather signatures to put any of their candidates on the ballot in 2012.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Well... the naysayers will be glad to know that the Constitution Party is attempting a comeback in the State of Indiana.

Here's the nationwide platform: Constitution Party Platform

It appears that their platform is similar to the Libertarian Party - but with a Bible-Belt We Want Our Religious and Moral issues bent.

The one impediment to them becoming a factor is the need to gather signatures to put any of their candidates on the ballot in 2012.

Actually, they have two other impediments also: The religious and moral issue one- it's no one else's business what kind of relationship I have with my Creator or with any other person. If you want to change someone else's behavior, change your own. That's the only one you have control over- and the small, third-party issue as well. They will face the same nonsensical anger that the LP faces and the same rantings about "stolen votes".
I favor people having more, not fewer choices. I think the CP has as much right as any other to exist and to try to get their agenda moved forward. I personally do not agree with their moralistic bent, but that just means I won't likely be choosing any of their candidates. Conversely, if I see a D and an R and both look to be bad choices, there's no L and a CP candidate is on the ballot, I won't rule out that vote any more than I rule out a R or a D if they are the best candidate.

Blessings,
Bill