Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
Who's got our votes? Reason and friends let it all hang out of the voting booth.
|10.19.04 @ 2:40PM|#
By my count, it stacks up like this.
12.5 Kerry
11 Bush
7.5 Badnarik
1 Robert Anton Wilson
Of course, some people were wishy washy in their answers, so I made
a few judgement calls.
|10.19.04 @ 2:42PM|#
"Favorite president: Teller (he?s president of Buggs and Rudy
Discount Productions [Penn & Teller?s company]), because he can
lie without saying a word."
Classic, I'm voting for Penn.
|10.19.04 @ 2:42PM|#
Interesting survey.
Two questions: Of those people who think a republican form of
government is worth spending 30 seconds to vote every four years
how many understand how the electoral college works? For example
Charles Murray, last time I checked he lived in Maryland -- solidly
in the Kerry camp yet he says: "I find the Democrats so extremely
obnoxious that I have to vote against them, and I can�t do that
voting Libertarian." Really...
David Kopel: wow -- Browne 96, Nader 2000, Bush 2004 over something
like civilization -- it would be interesting to see his list of
meds he is on for each of those 4 years.
For the almost zero coverage Badnarik gets here he sure is getting
a fair amount of votes from y'all.
Warren|10.19.04 @ 2:54PM|#
2004:Badnarik
2000:Browne
Most embarrassing: In 1988 I was stationed overseas in the Navy and
didn't bother to get an absentee ballot.
Favorite Pres: Silent Cal.
|10.19.04 @ 2:54PM|#
2004: Badnarik
2000: Browne
1996: Clinton
Most embarassing: Clinton
Favorite President: David Palmer
|10.19.04 @ 3:10PM|#
1992 - Clinton
1996 - Clinton
2000 - Green Party Electors (that's my story and I'm sticking to
it. Read the Constitution! We vote for electors! I can't hear you!
La la la la la..........)
Favorite President - You've convinced me. GW.
|10.19.04 @ 3:12PM|#
Yes, it seems I did leave out Fudd. My sincerest
apologies.
On another note, I seemed to see a number of mentions of Badnarik
where they thought he was "embarassing" or a let-down or
whatever.
If anyone shares this opinion I'd be interested in reading about
it. He seems a lot less embarassing than the Russo, Nolan, Browne,
or the other big names in the LP.
Badnarik is less embarassing than Bush, Kerry, Cobb, Peroutka, or
Nader. "Free Speech Zone" Bush is an embarassment. Kerry seems to
be in love with the idea of letting UN bureaucrats decide US
policy. Peroutka seems like a religious nut - but not too far from
the views of Ohio AG Ken Blackwell (whom you may hear more about
after 11/2 depending on how things go). Cobb's solutions seem to
rely on big government, and Nader is too rabid in his
anti-corporatism.
|10.19.04 @ 3:13PM|#
TWC,
As I have said here before, Penn & Teller are a natural pair
for president and vice president. The only downside is that they
have a secret plan to replace the U.S. flag with a giant three of
clubs, with the caption, "Is this your card?".
On the upside, they should make for entertaining State of the Union addresses. And, of course, they are libertarians. With scary magical powers.
|10.19.04 @ 3:19PM|#
As to whether or not Badnarik is embarassing, I've seen him on
TV a few times. He seems very articulate and reasonable, or at
least as reasonable as you can be while still pushing the LP
platform. Most of the lunatic allegations come from (possibly
tongue-in-cheek) comments made before winning the nomination.
Perhaps he really is a lunatic and he's just putting on a
respectable veneer right now to win more votes. Or perhaps he
accurately gauged his audience of LP delegates and realized that
some radical positions might help him at the convention. Now that
he's won the nomination, he can go mainstream to try and win
votes.
If my theory is correct, that would speak well of Badnarik and
poorly of the rest of the LP. It would also suggest that if
Badnarik had taken a different turn earlier in his political
activism then he might have made a respectable major-party
candidate. He understands that to win the nomination you need to
play to the base, and afterwards you need to go moderate to broaden
your appeal.
|10.19.04 @ 3:19PM|#
1992 - I'm just a young'un!
1996 - Browne
2000 - Browne
2004 - Kerry (in a purely ABB vote)
2008 - Kodos
|10.19.04 @ 3:27PM|#
"Badnarik is less embarassing than Bush, Kerry, Cobb, Peroutka,
or Nader."
I rest Neb's case.
And Pro, now I'm stuck. Do I write in Penn? Teller? Touch the
screen for Boris Badnarak?
Or perhaps I should take my cue from the folks who advocate Free
Minds and Free Markets. Best way to get that? Vote for Kerry.
Second best way to get that? Vote for Bush.
Decisions. Shrug and Sigh.
|10.19.04 @ 3:30PM|#
Shit, I don't recall every election, but I'll give it a
shot:
1992 - Democrat (whoever that was)
1996 - Libertarian (assuming Browne)
2000 - Browne
2004 - Badnarik
Most embarassing - Democrat in 1992...I didn't know better
Favourite - George Washington
|10.19.04 @ 3:33PM|#
I don't remember who I voted for in 2000, because the Arizona Liberatarian party seceeded from the national party and put they're own special nut job on the ballot. And I voted for him anyway, whatever his name was. Would have voted for Browne otherwise.
|10.19.04 @ 3:39PM|#
I'm surprised no one gave Hillary in '08 as a reason for voting for Kerry in '04.
|10.19.04 @ 3:40PM|#
Todd - see, I don't remember shit about how I vote...I'm an
Arizonan, so I must have voted for whoever the AZ lib nutjob was,
cuz I pretty much always vote lib.
BTW, I've actually seen a Badnarik bumpersticker on this truck on
my drive home in E Phoenix.
Jesse Walker|10.19.04 @ 3:47PM|#
The Arizona Libertarian Party's candidate in 2000 was science-fiction writer and gun-rights activist L. Neil Smith.
|10.19.04 @ 4:12PM|#
2004 - Bush, because Kerry is the real moron in this race. Has
this man updated his politics since 1971, leave alone 2001?
2000 - Bush - because the Earth is most decisively NOT in the
Balance. (note: I vote against, not for, most of the time.)
Most embarassing: I've voted Marrou, Browne, Bush, and now Bush.
YOU MAKE THE CALL! They are all embarassments. Browne is probably
the worst - the other three are less crooked.
Favored Prez: Jefferson. I have a certain fondness for the ones who
didn't accomplish much (Harding, Coolidge, for example), but
Jefferson stood for a more aggressive advocacy. John Quincy Adams
is my favorite ex-Prez, standing as a stawart against slavery.
Lincoln is my least favorite - there is more American blood on his
hands than any other figure in our history. If he had wanted to
free the slaves, maybe it would have been worth some of it, but he
himself said he fought for "union", a truly evil cause.
|10.19.04 @ 4:18PM|#
Marrou, Browne, Browne, Kerry.
Most embarrassing: jeez, there's something embarrassing about all
of them (Marrou's child support issue, Browne's profiteering,
Kerry's... almost everything). I'd say Browne 2000, since by then I
knew about the relevant corruption, but neither W nor Gore would
have left me feeling any better.
Badnarik at least lacks the personal corruption of the Browne team.
But at least Browne put forward the appearance of being a serious
campaigner who actually intended to win the nomination. In '96
Browne was considered preferable to Irwin Schiff, the well-known
tax protestor, on the grounds hat the latter was nutty and the
former seemed professional. This year the LP went for an *unknown*
nutty tax protestor.
|10.19.04 @ 4:29PM|#
TWC,
Vote Badnarik. He's the most likely candidate to name Penn & Teller to his government. As for write-ins, I'm trying to figure out how to do that with a touchscreen myself. Once I sort out all the constitutional amendments on the ballot and which Florida supreme court justices I don't like (I just got my sample ballot today), I'm voting early.
|10.19.04 @ 4:31PM|#
1992 - Perot: I was impressed with the problem of the deficit,
plus, as Dennis Miller said at the time "Set the controls for the
heart of the sun you demented dwarf."
1996 - DNV, thought it would have been Browne.
2000 - Bush: See Julian Sanchez's comments, plus Gore was a
frightening loon.
2004 - Bush: See Dave Kopel's comments
Best President: Either Reagan (see Jeff Taylor's comments) or
Washington, who used to try to impress people with the distance he
could throw rocks, and played catch with his aides de camp.
|10.19.04 @ 4:38PM|#
Lowdog,
There's always a car at my kid's school in central phx with a
Badnarik sticker, leading me to think it belongs to someone on the
staff, which is intriguing. OTH, it's a charter school.
|10.19.04 @ 5:05PM|#
Most embarassing: I've voted Marrou, Browne, Bush, and now
Bush. YOU MAKE THE CALL! They are all embarassments. Browne is
probably the worst - the other three are less crooked.
Browne was corrupt but how could he possible be more corrupt than
the Bush administration? The Plame affair alone outweights a couple
Browne campaign workers absconding with some money, which at the
most was $500,000, a tiny amount really...
1992: Jerry Brown then Marrou
96-2000: Browne
2004: Badnarik or Emma Goldman
|10.19.04 @ 5:13PM|#
I wasn't going to do this but you guys are having too much
fun.
From Hospers to Browne (yeah, I'm THAT old) I have never wavered.
Came close once when Reagan ran the first time but in the end I
voted LP.
I don't regret any except the one vote I cast in favor of Indian
gaming. What a big frikkin' mistake that was. So much for
incremental change.
Favorite President? Well, isn't Jefferson the patron saint of
libertarians everywhere? Okay, how about Millard Fillmore, he put a
bathtub in the White House. Other than that he isn't known for a
got dam thing.
Fortunately there are a lot of LP choices in Californicate-all
major offices and many local offices as well.
The only other reason to go to the polls, and this is important, is
to vote NO on every proposition that involves money regardless of
the broad-based assurances that voting yes will not raise
taxes.
|10.19.04 @ 5:17PM|#
Todd, I thought every school in Az was a charter school.
:)
You guys have some really top drawer public schools over there.
|10.19.04 @ 5:55PM|#
Ah, well, confession is good for the soul:
1984 - Reagan
1988 - Bush
1992 - Clinton
1996 - Browne
2000 - Browne
2004 - Badnarik
My most embarassing vote was definitely in 1992. I voted for
Clinton more because I got offended by him and Gore being referred
to as the "Two Bubbas" (I lived in Minneapolis at the time) than
for any rational political reason. I also thought it was time for a
change in the White House and was sure by the time I voted that
Perot was a nutcase.
My favorite president is George Washington, with Thomas Jefferson a close second. They just don't make 'em like that any more.
|10.19.04 @ 5:57PM|#
Ayn Randian-
YOU CAN'T VOTE FOR A LIBERTERIAN! POLITICAL LIBERTERIANISM WITHOUT
THE PROPER MORAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATION IS AS BAD AS
COMMUNISM! OR WORSE!!
Ah gosh. I actually agree with her broader point that a
philosophical revolution is much more important the a political
one. But at the end of the day, I really don't care what the rest
of the world thinks, so long as the government basically leaves me
alone.
Anyway, Bush and Kerry don't want a government that'll leave me
alone so...
2004: Badnarik. Too late to change, my absentee ballot has already
been sent back. I find Bush preferable in the short run to Kerry
for a lot of reasons, but they're both terrible for this country in
the long run. Giving support to a Libeterian might have the result
of eventually giving the party enough clout that they'll start
taking themselves seriously, and then maybe everyone else will to!
That's my only answer to the LP's constant disparagement on this
board and elsewhere as a bunch of loon's, but I think it's a good
one. If they gained a decent bit more support, especially in terms
of money and getting on the media's radar, I think they would start
running serious campaigns with serious candidates.
2000: Too young!
Most embarassing: I've obviously never voted for prez, but I have
voted in a municipal election. Now I don't regret voting the
straight republican ticket (might be worth something at a local
level) or to expand/not expand the town library, but I was high as
fucking hell on DXM when I filled out the absentee ballot. It's
really more embarassing to be on DXM in the first place then to
have made a mockery of my civic duty by voting while high; And yet
as I ran around the apartment yelling "I'M VOTING ON DRUGS!!!" I
realized I was learning an important lesson on the merits of the
democratic process. You figure out what that lesson was...
Best Prez: The reasoning for all the GW responses looks pretty good
to me. Though I'm partial to Madison for the his role in writing
the federalist papers, probably the only thing which have made me
seriously consider changing my major.
|10.19.04 @ 6:08PM|#
I'm still puzzled by all the people on the list who think that
not voting is some big statement. The problem is your protest isn't
registering on anybody's radar except your own, because, as it's
been pointed out here before, there is no poll showing your
not-voting as any different than someone who was too lazy to vote.
If you want to protest the system, vote, but write in somebody or
vote third-party. If Elmer Fudd got 5% of the vote, people would
notice. Not voting just gets us a lot of "aren't Americans so
pathetic."
I'm voting Badnarik. Or whatever nut job the LP puts out there in
the future. Because at this point, when there is no chance of
actually getting an LP president, the vote is more for the
principals of liberty than for the person.
|10.19.04 @ 6:20PM|#
As a raving liberal, I would note my agreement with the many who
picked Washington as their favorite president. As Peter Bagge so
nicely put it, he deserves credit "for actually refusing to assume
as much power as he could have gotten away with." That's a big deal
-- he could have been Napoleon.
(And boo hiss to all those who picked jokes -- there are certainly
a number of clinkers among the Presidents, but if you can't
acknowledge that a few were great men, then you're just a
cynic.)
Charles Hueter|10.19.04 @ 6:55PM|#
2004: Not voting. See Wendy McElroy's reasons.
2000: First time I could vote, and I still can't properly explain
why I voted for Nader. Going from him to where I am now left me a
bit whiplashed...
Most embarrassing: I voted straight-ticket Republican with the
exception of Nader in '00. What a confused fool I was back
then.
Best Prez: Honestly don't know enough about them all and what they
did while in power. Of course, giving them that power in the first
place is part of the problem.
CTD|10.19.04 @ 7:12PM|#
I wanna play!
92-04: Libertarian
Most embarrassing: maybe Browne, because of the funding ca-ca that
happened, but my real most embarrassing vote was when I crossed
over in the California primary to vote for Gray Davis, just because
his opponent Checchi looked even worse.
|10.19.04 @ 7:31PM|#
1980 - Ronald Reagan
1984 - Ronald Reagan
1988 - George H.W. Bush (under the mistaken impression he'd be
Ronald Reagan II)
1992 - George H.W. Bush (voting to keep Clinton out of the White
House)
1996 - Harry Browne
2000 - George W. Bush (voting to keep Gore out of the White
House)
2004 - George W. Bush (sigh - voting to keep Kerry out etc.
etc.)
Most embarrassing: Harry Browne, because of the scandals. (And it
was my first unpragmatic, principled vote, too.) I don't feel so
great about the Bushes, either.
Favorite: George Washington
I only vote in self-defense. I vote Libertarian when I feel I can
afford to. I started out voting Repub because they seemed the only
ones who had a clue about the Cold War (when the single biggest
threat to human life and freedom was the Soviet Union). Nowadays
I'm a full-fledged anarcho-capitalist, but they never run for
office. The Repubs, disappointing and unruddered as they are, have
at least a spark of libertarian principle among them; the Dems are
a basket case in this regard, IMO.
|10.19.04 @ 8:21PM|#
Interesting survey. For some reason none of the things said surprised me. All those who I suspected of being cryptofascists and republicans who smoke pot supplied the voting record to back it up. Good show.
|10.19.04 @ 8:34PM|#
hey rvman -- Lincoln didn't fight to preserve "union," he fought
to preserve "the union" -- as in, the United States of America. And
if you think that's "a truly evil cause," then Fuck You.
Jeez-us. Just when I think it might be safe to vote Libertarian,
I'm reminded what a bunch of kooks they are. I'm almost embarassed
to be a small-l libertarian at this point. Almost.
|10.19.04 @ 8:59PM|#
Why do people care about the kooks who just might happen to share similar viewpoints to themselves? So what? Is the libertarian philosophy one that, through personal reflextion, seems to be the one you most agree with or not? If it is, and you truely believe it is the 'right' philosophy for the betterment of mankind (as I do), who cares what anybody else thinks? I would think that you'd want to get as many people on board as possible, kooks or no.
|10.19.04 @ 9:03PM|#
You're right, lowdog. I am a small-l libertarian, because I
agree with the philosophy. I can't be a Libertarian, though,
because the party is controlled by the Lincoln-was-a-fascist types,
the ones who thought it was cute to hold a demonstration in
remembrance of those killed by the U.S., on 9/11 of this
year.
I'll just hold out hope that someday the LP will be a voice for
classical liberals like myself. Or that one of the major parties
will move in our direction, or both.
|10.19.04 @ 9:10PM|#
Why do people care about the kooks who just might happen to
share similar viewpoints to themselves?
Because we'd like that philosophy to be popular enough to actually
have an effect beyond our self-satisfaction.
Nostrildogmas|10.19.04 @ 9:14PM|#
1980 - Barry Commoner
1984 - Ronald Reagan
1988 - Ron Paul
1992 - Ross Perot
1996 - Harry Browne
2000 - Harry Browne
2004 - George W. Bush
Most embarrasing? Probably 2004. I have to admit it is not
particularly principled (1980 was wacky, but quite principled), but
I have to vote for Kerry's strongest opposition.
Most Interesting: 1980. When I looked in the newspaper following
the election, my precinct had exactly 1 vote for Barry. How many
people can say they have actually seen their vote singled out like
that?
Favorite: Nobody I really like ever gets elected. Reagan turned out
to be great for the country after the Carter-induced funk we were
in. I'll go with him.
|10.19.04 @ 9:20PM|#
1988 - Bush the Elder (Registered Libertarian when he broke Tax
Pledge)
1992 - Bush the Elder (Clinton wanted to nationalize health care
and he executed a retarded kid to show that he was tough on
crime.)
1996 - Dole (Flat Tax; Jack Kemp)
2000 - Bush the Younger (Looked like a straight-shooter; good ideas
for reforming Social Security)
2004 - Badnarik (Against Patriot Act)
Most Embarrasing: Bush the Younger. To be so duped!
Favorite: Went door to door for Reagan when too young to vote.
|10.19.04 @ 9:28PM|#
Believe me guys, I understand where you're coming from, I was
just a little surprised by the 'almost embarassed to be a small-l
libertarian at this point' remark, which is what I was mainly
rebutting.
At the same time, I get enough strange looks and stupid questions
when I proclaim my libertarian affiliation that it almost made me
decide to simply call myself independent. Then I just figured I
should stick to my guns and vote my conscience. I can't tell you
how many of my friends are begging me to vote Kerry (the ABB
contingency), but I'm sure I'll have a hard time doing that.
However, I've gone back and forth so many times that it'll be an
election day decision for sure. Since I'm in AZ, I'll probably wait
until late in the day to see what the projections are. If it's
really close, I might be more inclined to vote Kerry (ABB and a
divided congress/white house would be the reasons), but I'll still
have a hard time going any way but Lib.
|10.19.04 @ 9:31PM|#
I'll just hold out hope that someday the LP will be a voice
for classical liberals like myself. Or that one of the major
parties will move in our direction, or both.
What I'd love to see is a third party that is more moderate but
still fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Maybe something
along the lines of what Jesse Ventura talked about. (Yes, I know,
Ventura wasn't perfect by any means, but he seemed to be closer to
my preferences than your typical Democrat or Republican.)
The problem is that our system gives huge disincentives to support
a third party, even a moderate one, and the only successful third
party candidates are mostly highly charismatic exceptions like
Ventura. So a moderate third party would quickly bleed off
supporters to the D's and R's if they didn't succeed right away.
The only people left would be the die-hards. And pretty soon you'd
see them go from a mainstream party to an extreme party.
What we need is something like Approval Voting or Instant
Runoff.
|10.19.04 @ 9:48PM|#
1996 - (honestly can't remember, either Dole or Browne)
2000 - Browne
2004 - (not worth the effort)
My most embarassing vote wasn't for president but for governor.
Christine Todd Whitman, Round 2? Jesus.
My favourite president is William Henry Harrison, without a
doubt.
- Josh
|10.19.04 @ 10:12PM|#
1996: Browne
2000: Browne
2004: Badnarik
Most embarrassing: I voted for some Greens in 2002, on behalf of my
girlfriend. She voted for some Libertarians for me though, so I
guess that's alright.
Best president: They've pretty much just gotten worse and worse
over time, with a small bump in quality with Reagan, although he
was a mixed bag.
|10.19.04 @ 11:15PM|#
Just to avoid possible future misunderstandings, let it be known
that I (Stevo) and not the same person as Steve (above).
Five or 10 years ago, I probably would have named Lincoln as my
favorite president. My view of him nowadays is a tad
jaundiced.
I am also not the same person as Code Monkey Steve, Somebody
Stevens, or Too Many Steves.
To further distinguish myself, I have added a surname to my handle.
(Chosen because it seems like 90% of the time, once I post on a
thread, all further discussion stops.)(This current one appears to
be an exception. But hey, let's see what happens when I post THIS
...)
|10.20.04 @ 1:26AM|#
(And boo hiss to all those who picked jokes -- there are
certainly a number of clinkers among the Presidents, but if you
can't acknowledge that a few were great men, then you're just a
cynic.)
In my post I listed David Palmer as my favorite President, but to
be serious for a moment my favorite would have to be either
Washington or Adams:
Washington set the precedent of a leader voluntarily stepping aside
after 2 terms. Adams did something even more important, ratifying
our tradition of peacefully transfering power after losing an
election to somebody from an opposing faction. My understanding is
that passions were inflamed at the time, and Jefferson feared a
civil war, but Adams succeeded in peacefully handing over his
office to an opponent. That is the difference between a democratic
republic versus a banana republic.
|10.20.04 @ 3:14AM|#
2004: Badnarik
2000: I was 15 at the time but I'd have voted for Brown
Fav. Pres: I'll go with Jefferson
|10.20.04 @ 7:29AM|#
OK I can understand those who say they won't reveal their votes but really, saying you can't remember who you voted for in 2000??? You seriously can't?!
|10.20.04 @ 8:13AM|#
Stevo:
"The Repubs, disappointing and unruddered as they are, have at
least a spark of libertarian principles"
At least the Dems don't care who you like to fuck.
|10.20.04 @ 1:04PM|#
>Lincoln didn't fight to preserve "union," he >fought to
preserve "the union" -- as in, the
>United States of America.
"The union" was gone in March 1861. Lincoln's choice was either let
the southern states go, and let "The union" be the northern states,
or fight a war of uncertain cost (in the end, about 1 million dead
, including increased disease) to force the southern states to
rejoin against their will. If he had let the southern states go,
the north and west would have gone on as "The United States of
America". The southern states would have gone on as "The
Confederate States of America". All that would have changed was the
political allegiance of some of the states. "Preserve the Union" is
code for "Federal Government, right or wrong." The voting people of
the south didn't want to be part of the US anymore - who gave the
people of the north the right to force them? They were not
ethnically, geographically, or at the time politically "one", why
should they have been governmentally? Saying "The union" meant
anything other than political power is rank nationalism of a type
familiar in other, more tribally defined nations, but does not
befit an America which was founded on ideals(frequently violated)
of universal rights.
I would be saying the same thing about this if the New England
secession movement had resulted in a war 20 years earlier.
(And yes, "States' Rights" was code for racism. Southern
libertarians should dump that language, anyway. States don't have
rights, individuals do. And the southern states violated those
rights and deserved squashing. My argument is with the events of
the 1860s, not the 1950s.)
The Civil War had one good cause - freeing the slaves. Both
Governments fought for evil causes. (The Confederates somewhat more
evil than the union, but both evil.) It is an accident of history
that such a good thing as emancipation came out of that war.
Bringing this back to topic (My bad for taking it off) I view
Browne as more corrupt than Bush because Browne corrupted the most
of that which he controlled, which was fortunately limited only to
the national Libertarian Party apparatus and various associated
groups. Bush has created a much more limited corruption relative to
that which he controls. (He hasn't seriously corrupted the much
larger Republican Party or the US Government, at least relative to
where they were corruption-wise, before.) I would cite the energy
bill and the medicare bill as corrupt before Plame, though - Plame
is just a dispute between spies and their masters, not an act of
corruption. There is no proof that I can see that anything
important was compromised - to the extent that Plame's status was
Secret, it isn't clear that it needed to be, and it isn't clear
that it actually was a secret.
|10.20.04 @ 2:42PM|#
"The Repubs, disappointing and unruddered as they are, have
at least a spark of libertarian principles"
At least the Dems don't care who you like to fuck.
Some Repubs care and some don't. There are gay Republicans, for
example (the Log Cabin Republicans).
The Democrats are more likely to care whom you rent to, whom you
hire, how much you pay them, etc., and interfere in those mutually
consensual interactions.
The Republican Party has a Republican Libertarian Caucus to fight
against the statist tendencies of the party. As far as I (or
Google) know, there is no Democratic Libertarian Caucus.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245