Belle ♥s Libertarians

Julian Sanchez | November 7, 2004

Apparently some electorally chastened Democrats are looking our way in search of a larger coalition. I don't know how strong the prospects for a long term relationship are, but maybe if they flirt enough, the GOP will get jealous.and send us a dozen roses and some fiscal discipline. Hey, a guy can dream, right?

Comments

|11.7.04 @ 6:23PM|#

Yeah, you can dream....IF I were the Democrats, before I looked to the LP I'd look to Nader AND the Greens...Let's be honest you guys AVERAGED 6,000 votes per state. Nader and the Greens (as a bloc) get more votes than you guys. The Greens like to smoke dope and they can generate 1-2% of the vote...

and since any of the three of you Nader, Greens, or LP would scare the Beejebus out of uncommitted voters and disaffected Democrats, driving off hundreds of thousands if not millions, they might as well pick up 1% as they would 300K.

|11.7.04 @ 6:25PM|#

Come on, baby, you know I'll treat you right.

Yeah, we've had our fights, but you know that no Democrat could ever please you the way I can. Look, I got you your favorite, long-stemmed roses! And here's a draft of a bill to privatize social security. No, you can't have it just yet. It's just a draft. Aw, sugar you know I'll introduce this bill when it's all worked out. Have I ever lied to you? Look, I know the committee chairman, and he owes me a favor, so this time I promise the bill will pass.

What's that? Oh, yeah, George Soros. Look, sugar, just stay far away from him and whatever candidates he bankrolls. He might be saying good things, but you can't trust that guy. I heard he makes his money from drug cartels, and those guys kill people! Well, that's what I heard.

Ah yeah, that's it honey. Come on, why don't we just go upstairs and put on that record you like so much. Oh, of course I forgive you for voting for Badnarik, and all that crazy talk about divided government. I know you didn't mean it. Look, this is where you belong, where WE belong. Just don't ever go away from me again. I promise that this time it will all be right. Things will work out just fine as long as you stand by us Republicans.

Yeah!

|11.7.04 @ 6:53PM|#

Oh, Dennis honey...

|11.7.04 @ 7:06PM|#

Joe-
Who's talking about the LP? I doubt more than a tiny fraction of even self-identified libertarians vote LP (I doubt I ever will), let alone nominal Republicans whose outlook is roughly libertarian.

|11.7.04 @ 7:28PM|#

I see Julian... so what's the Democratic Party gonna offer, Dope-NOPE costs too much on the morals front... end affirmative Action-Watch Jesse and Obama and Kwesi Mfume stroke out... Come home from Iraq... didn't they already try that? What're they gonna offer? They stand a better chance getting the Greens on board, than you guys...

David Rossie|11.7.04 @ 7:35PM|#

Julian,

What does that say about libertarians? I can understand if a large percentage don't vote at all, but if a majority votes Republican in each election, aren't we to blame for our irrelevance?

I like Belle's proposal. What say we band together with some healthy anti-authoritarians who merely need some lessons in economics?

|11.7.04 @ 7:45PM|#

Uh Dave,"...with some healthy anti-authoritarians who merely need some lessons in economics?" that won't be anyone on the LEFT.... Anti-Authoritarians, on the Left, let's ask for Nazi's who like to sit Shiva, or Vegetarians who like steak and kidney pie whilst we're at it.

|11.7.04 @ 8:05PM|#

What I know of libertarians, they go in four directions: vote Republican for some economic issues, vote Democrat for some social issues (that was me, holding my nose), vote Libertarian for purist issues, or don't vote because they think it's all a mess and it won't help anyhow.

Libertarianism is an ideology, not a party. It's not worth pursuing for either party, since it hasn't shown any long-term usefulness. The most successful libertarian politician is a Republican congressman from Texas. If that doesn't say the LP isn't very relevant, nothing will.

Too bad it's needed now more than ever. But sheesh, LP! quit pretending to be relevant. Get a big name candidate like Drew Carey (I'm serious), get some attention, make sure the running mate isn't a former general with all the signs of dementia, stick it to the big two parties at every opportunity, get entrenched in the primary process as much as possible, try to grow without being such nambypamby above-it-all political-Puritan tsk-tsking killjoys, and get some damn people to hear your message. Then you might actually matter.

And if having a big party notice you would give you the biggest thrill of your lives, you need to get beyond junior high.

fyodor|11.7.04 @ 8:12PM|#

It's nice to know Belle sees it our way on a number of issues, and good for her. And if she can convince leftists all around that libertarians aren't manifestations of the anti-Goddess, maybe I could out myself to more of my friends without fearing being even more of a social pariah than I already am. But her invitation to libertarians to join the Democratic Party is kinda silly. Obviously if the Dems put up a candidate who took more libertarian positions that the Repub, he'd likely get more libertarian votes. Hardly rocket science. But since Belle doesn't speak for the Democratic Party, this is little more than a nice fantasy.

Oh, and interesting how she tries to take a pro-freedom stance towards hiring but then backs away in response to one of her commenters. (Hmm, how come I hear Jennifer telling me that libertarianism will never be "codified into law" because of positions such as this....)

|11.7.04 @ 8:28PM|#

Each libertarian puts different priorities on issues, and the Democrats have already won over some whose primary concerns are not economic. My primary concerns ARE economic: As long as I perceive the work that needs to be done on the economic front to be greater than what we need on the social front, there's a snowball's chance in hell of me voting for someone who is against free trade and who doesn't at least give lip service to shrinking the welfare state (read: most Democrats).

I don't think there's really a "libertarian vote" to win unless you're libertarian on all cylinders. Most of the people who believe as we do grew up in one of the mainstream parties and we each took our own unique path to libertarianism. For some people, it's all about legalizing dope. Some want a more isolationist foreign policy first and foremost. Some think that strict adherence to the Constitution is vital before all else. A party can pick off different chunks of the libertarian movement, but they can't absorb us all unless they become libertarian themselves: fat chance in the Dem Party, which is basically a rat king of widely varying special interests each wanting to increase the size of one government entitlement or another.

|11.7.04 @ 8:28PM|#

1. After yet another loss, the Democratic Party is looking for a winning formula. They realize they have to look beyond their base.

2. As "The Emerging Democratic Majority" says, the future of the Democratic Party lies in attracting the votes of well education, well paid, social progressives who are currently holding their nose when they vote for either party. Remind you of anyone you know?

david|11.7.04 @ 9:00PM|#

Aww, LP, I ♥ you too.

|11.7.04 @ 9:02PM|#

The Democrats will not leave their base, which is a shame since the Republicans have left a huge hole for the Democrats to move to. Democrats are for the "little man", so if they would learn that government is the biggest threat then they could argue for fiscal discipline, less intrusive government, fewer foreign entanglements, and keeping God out of politics. Republicans have chosen to give up their rights in order to save their money. Democrats must abandon their idea that the government is the answer to every problem if they stand any chance of turning the tide.

|11.7.04 @ 9:23PM|#

I favor continuing to tend the fire of anarchy here on H&R until the outside world comes here. It's cold out there and getting colder.
For those of you intent on outreach, the Advocates for Self Government has the world's smallest political quiz. Is there some way to issue an invitation for those libertarians who have thereby identified themselves to come here and make a comment, or just say "present"?
Also, how hard/expensive would it be for a professional polling organization to identify "conscientious non-voters" then to identify its subgroup, "libertarian/anarchic conscientious non-voters." It would, no doubt, make some of you hyper-active types feel better to confirm relatively big numbers of like-minded people.
But what I'm telling you is those folks are slowly but surely aggregating here, so, be patient, and let's continue to sharpen our thinking. Some day, when our numbers are sufficient, we can shock the bejeebers out of both Repuglickins and DemocRATS.

|11.7.04 @ 10:10PM|#

Well, I'm probably not the most objective commenter here, since I already think the Dems are the lesser evil (pause for rotten tomatoes). Still...

If the choice were between an average Republican and a Democrat who was a hard-core ACLU type and also had some understanding of economics (i.e. frugal by Dem standards, interested in market-oriented solutions to at least some problems) I would not hesitate to vote for that Dem. Of course, if the choice was between an average Dem and an average Republican, I'd vote LP.

And if the choice was between a "libertarian-lite" Democrat and a libertarian-style Republican? Well, if I should ever be so lucky as to have that choice I'd probably go to a psychiatrist and say "Doc, I must be hallucinating, because I'm seeing things that can't possibly be true! Help!"

|11.7.04 @ 10:14PM|#

Phocion,

My primary concerns are economic also. I find it hard to believe that a libertarian would not consider his present position as a tax slave for a good part of year first. I make about $80k/year and 'give' ~42% of each paycheck to the government (federal+state). That does not include poperty tax or double taxations like sales tax and user fees. By any reasonable measure of what the government shoud take from its citizens, this is outrageous.

Drastically lowering taxes will cause the government to prioritise it's expenses. This will have a positive effect on other liberarian causes. The war on drugs would probably continue on some fronts like cocaine and heroine, but the marajuana part of the war would have to go unfunded. The intervention in Afghanastan would probably continue, but another expensive Iraq-like intervention would be too expensive to consider.

Presently, the party that feeds the monster the least is the most libertarian. The Dem's will not lower taxes. No pledge they make regarding liberalizing certain behavoirs carries much weight.

|11.7.04 @ 10:43PM|#

The world according to joe:
"2. As "The Emerging Democratic Majority" says, the future of the Democratic Party lies in attracting the votes of well education, well paid, social progressives who are currently holding their nose when they vote for either party. Remind you of anyone you know?"

No.

The very well educated voted for Kerry, the well educated voted for Bush.

see 'vote by education' at

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

I'm guessing here, but I suspect the very well educated are more likely to work at a University or public funded think-tank than the well educated and they are just voting their pocketbook like everyone else. Anyway, the well educated vastly outnumber the very well educated. So you're pissing in the wind.

'Progressive' is a nonsense term.

|11.7.04 @ 11:22PM|#

What if we think of ourselves as Saint Paul? Paul tried to take the Gospel to the Jews (read Republicans, saying you must be saved from the idealogy of Big Government). But Republicans feeling their oats after winning elections and power from realiance on war on drug and terrorism and on religious right, tell us, don't bother us, we're already the chosen people so why should we be "saved"?

As Paul told the Jewish people, "Very well, if you will not listen then we go to the unclean gentiles." Who are the gentiles? Democracts.
After all, we are the people with new ideas and solid facts here, so why not work to keep one party from gaining monopoly? Democracts are going through a lot of soul-searching right now. If they really desires to win next election, they would be more willing to listen to us.

Some ideas:

hard money as friend of wooking class. Think how happy an factory worker would be if he see that his gold-backed dollar is not eaten away by inflation.

Abortion as aspect of private property, in which a woman's body is her own property and not state-owned. (same for gay sex).

Gun ownership: draw on history of jews and blacks who use their guns to defend themselves. Also play up the racist origins of gun control in America.

Helping the local union of teachers buy out their own public school as a co-op corporation, therefore making it a priavte school AND making those local teachers new owners with real power and access to the books. Think of revolution that can take place both in the schools and within the union of teachers. This can break the back of union bosses as locals break away to work to make THEIR school profitable. This action can lead more teachers more open to vochers as it would mean more money. Some of the shareholders could retire or switch to different positions as their unknown skills in bookkeeping and stuff come forth. Such ownership would also enable the new teacher-shareholders to reject lazy or bad students in favor of ones who's willing to keep her share of the student contract.

That's all I can write now, but I hope this will help some to start think new ideas.

|11.8.04 @ 1:14AM|#

If seventy thousand odd votes in Ohio had gone the other way, the Republicans rather than the Democrats would have come knocking. Sooner or later the Democrats will realize that they need American voters to be less afraid of terrorism more than they need the libertarian vote.

...in order to win a presidential election, that is.

I suspect that the labor unions would rather lose elections than embrace free trade, and I suspect there are a number of other constituencies that would prefer another loss to embracing libertarian concerns as well.

There is something, potentially, that the Democrats could offer us, a legitimate appeal to women voters. I know several Soccer/Security Moms, and I can't think of any aspect of the Libertarian agenda that plays well with them. If the Libertarian Party is to have any future of its own, it must do a better job of appealing to women voters, married and unmarried alike.

...as I've written before, I have no idea how the Libertarian Party can appeal to Soccer/Security Moms. They like gun control. They think our approach to the minimum wage, the poor, taxes and a host of other economic issues is mean-spirited, and to them there's nothing less appealing than people who are mean-spirited. They like their health care just fine. (Have you ever heard of a Soccer/Security Mom who is unhappy with her own OB/GYN?) When Soccer/Security Moms hear us talk about legalizing drugs, they imagine their children on cocaine because of us. They're either sending their kids to good public schools or they're sending their children to private schools; either way, they're happy with the education their children receive. They want the FCC to protect their children from broadcasters. How do we appeal to these women by ourselves?

If we can't find a way to appeal to married women, then we should join one of the major
parties and, right now, the Democrats fit that bill as well as the Republicans.

|11.8.04 @ 3:08AM|#

anyone conflating liberty with the democratic party should have their gullet ripped out by some anarchist

the republican party has been the only successful force for liberty in the world for 25 years

if you're not in that big tent trying to pimp whatever sacred cow motivates you to call yourself a libertarian, then you're just here disingenously trying to recruit the ignorant

|11.8.04 @ 6:47AM|#

Yes, eponymous, Reagan's authorization of drug testing and the War on Drugs was truly one of the greatest pro-liberty stances of the past 25 years.

|11.8.04 @ 8:35AM|#

eponymous,

Can you spare us the hyperbole? Are you going to tell us now that Poland's "Solidarity" movement wasn't a successful force for liberty (note here that it wasn't the Republicans which started this movement, it was Poles)? Or Vaclev Havel's movement?

And one has to ask, what "big tent?" Last time I heard, gay people were not welcome in the Republican party if they want to be, well gay; indeed, as I recall, the Republican party stance is that consensual homosexual sex is something that is proper for outlaw.

Anyone conflating liberty with the Republican party has a screw loose in their head.

|11.8.04 @ 9:00AM|#

VERY well said Ken. I've noticed that when I've mentioned small-l libertarian talking points like those you mentioned, I get the same response.

I think any union with a major party would help the one problem libertarians have: working the ground game. Simply put, for all our ideas, we don't have a simple way of rallying the troops block to block, neighborhood to neighborhood like the major parties. Until we start figuring out a way to persuade the block associations and the community boards and the PTAs, we have issues, which gets us right back to your point. Community relations is the goal, and persuading married women is the technique.

|11.8.04 @ 9:06AM|#

eponymous,

From the Texas Republican Party platform (2000):

... no homosexual or any individual convicted of child abuse or molestation should have the right to custody or adoption of a minor child, and that visitation with minor children by such persons should be limited to supervised periods.

Sorry, but comparing me to a child molestor without being subject to any trial, etc., strikes me as (a) anti-liberty and, because of the distinct legal sanction placed upon a homosexual because of the Texas Republican party's stance, (b) resembles a bill of attainder.

Sorry, but I get tired of Republicans telling me that they are "pro-liberty" when they obssess about locking up gay people.

|11.8.04 @ 10:03AM|#

I like Carl's analogy to St. Paul, because what did he do besides travel a lot and write letters? All of us here do that. (I'm including time spent in cyberspace as travel.)

eponymous,just so you know, although I'm an anarchist, gullet-ripping isn't my forte.
I'm sorry to say it wasn't even when I was in the Marine Corps.
Jennifer, do you rip gullets?

|11.8.04 @ 10:23AM|#

Continuing the St Paul analogy:
If we can just be patient until Constantine gets elected President, we'll all have it made in the shade.

Tim West|11.8.04 @ 10:41AM|#

Why dont we unite all the LIBERTARIANS first, and then worry about who else we can attract?

When National has 21,000 paid members and 140,000 registered libertarians that cant or wont join the actual LP, there's a problem somewhere. I think the biggest problem is the extremism that permeates the LP at it's core. That same core advances an impossible standard of liberty that can never be met, so it's easy to not have to care about actually electing anyone. Some of us are tired of this record of failure on the LP's part and are trying to do something about it. I have had a great deal of support for the formation of a "small L" LP caucus to be organized to better represent our views in the LP.

My blog is about getting the LP to get some common sense into it's platform and bringing on other reforms, I'd invite input from the crowd.

http://timwest.blogs.com

|11.8.04 @ 10:59AM|#

The Democrats are right on gay marraige, but are wrong on every other issue I can think of. I find it nauseating that I advanced the campaign of a guy who gay baited his way into the White House, but I have to admit that I was not tricked into doing so. I won't give up the right of self defense. I don't accept that Social Security is hunky dory. I don't accept that the problem with the Bush medicare plan was that it was miserly. I don't accept that the solution to healthcare in general is to create another national program. I believe that deficits over the long run are bad, but I don't know how that gets fixed with trillions in new spending proposed by the Dems. I don't accept that stimulation of current demand for people who shop at WalMart, combined with increased taxes on WalMart, is a rational tax policy. I do think that savings matters. I don't believe that education can be fixed by throwing more money at the Unichoice schooling system that is a bedrock of the Dem coalition. Companies that trade abroad in both labor and production are not traitorous.

Dems are just as bad on drugs. They are just as bad on law enforcement. The outliers who don't support major provisions of PATRIOT are bipartisan, not Democrat.

Look at the coalition. Remove the 'give me tax dollars' and 'save me from foreign competition' contingents, and what is left? In other words, to what extent do ACLU issues drive the policies of the left coalition? Small government types are largely ignored in the Right coalition, but they are an anathema to the guys on the left.

|11.8.04 @ 11:13AM|#

Jason-

I see your point, but I'm reminded of what a professor of mine said: "The right wants to arrest me, the left just wants to tax me."

This guy, FWIW, is an urban planning professor (I knew him because he was the resident faculty in my dorm in college), although his big schtick was market solutions (sort of a "work within the system" type of guy). He did a sabbatical in Sacramento and said that he went there a libertarian and came back an anarchist.

|11.8.04 @ 11:29AM|#

"I see your point, but I'm reminded of what a professor of mine said: "The right wants to arrest me, the left just wants to tax me."

I would ask, "where does the right want to arrest you that the left doesn't?"

fyodor|11.8.04 @ 11:53AM|#

thoreau,

What happens when you don't pay your taxes? No one really wants to arrest you as long as you do what you're told.

|11.8.04 @ 1:04PM|#

A political party which has government employee unions as one of it's most important constituencies has zero chance of forming an effective alliance with libertarian-leaning voters. A political party which manifestly believes that Congress has the power to pass laws restricting political speech and rights to assemble has zero chance of forming an effective alliance with libertarian-leaning voters.

Belle's positions are fine and dandy, but since no Democratic office-holder will ever concur, so what? The Republicans, for all their shortcomings and inability to form an effective alliance with libertarian-leaning voters, have at least elected someone like Gary Johnson of New Mexico as governor, who is at least within shouting distance of the neighborhood that libertarian- leaning voters live in.

|11.8.04 @ 1:22PM|#

Willie Sutton robbed banks because that's where the money is, and Democrats - if they have any common sense - will look for votes among those who vote Republican...not Libertarians OR Greens - that's where the votes are.

thoreau is a bitch for people who hold his beliefs in contempt, and who treat him worse than Republicans ever dreamed of, because he finds it insurmountably distasteful to associate with folks who sincerely hold populist tastes and traditional loyalties.

Therefore Democrats (as thoreau has just explained to you) can pretty much take his vote for granted - more, really, than even their own leftist base. This guarantees him more of the same.

|11.8.04 @ 1:30PM|#

"A political party which has government employee unions as one of it's most important constituencies has zero chance of forming an effective alliance with libertarian-leaning voters."

Not long ago, I would have argued that any party with government employee unions as one of its most important constituencies has little chance of forming an effective alliance with voters of any stripe. Unions are going the way of the dinosaur and the concerns of government employees don't inspire much support from anyone other government employees.

...but now I realize that swing voting Moms don't care either way about government employees or unions or government employee unions.

|11.8.04 @ 2:07PM|#

Jason-

You'll have to ask my professor which habits of his the right wants to arrest him for. I prefer not to know ;) My main point was that some people have rational reasons for placing civil liberties higher on the list than economic freedom.


Andrew-

I'm not a bitch for the left. I vote LP most of the time, and the rest of the time I split about evenly between the Dems and GOP. I like maverick Republicans better than your average Dem, and I like your average Dem better than your average Republican. This year I voted mostly LP in the partisan races, but I cast a protest vote for a Green in a partisan race with no LP candidate and no worthwhile Republican. I voted for Tom McClintock in the state senate race because he's a very good fiscal conservative, even though on social issues he's pretty typical of California Republicans (namely, pretty conservative due to gerrymandering).

So I'm hardly anybody's bitch. It's not like they trot me out at DNC meetings every time Terry McAuliffe says "Bring in the gimp!"

|11.8.04 @ 2:22PM|#

thoreau,

You are absolutely right. Lowering taxes is a great thing and all, but being in prison makes that a moot benefit.

Andrew,

...because he finds it insurmountably distasteful to associate with folks who sincerely hold populist tastes and traditional loyalties.

Can you tell us why holding "populist tastes and traditional loyalties" is worthy of merit? Indeed, part of populism includes anti-free trade efforts, and I see nothing of merit in that that, much less the homophobia, racism, nativism, etc. traditionally associated with populism.

Consider yourself fisked.

|11.8.04 @ 3:32PM|#

Jason

I have no idea what "fisked" means...really, I don't try to stay courant.

I have few populist (or popular) tastes, and scant traditional loyalties, but this isn't a deal-breaker for me. It doesn't take Republicans off my list.

I see Republicans as a lottery ticket with a 10 to 1 pay-off on 9.5 to 1 odds. LP as 100,000 to 1 pay-off on a million to one odds

...and the Democratic option is simply rigged.

If it matters, you may consider yourself rebutted.

|11.8.04 @ 4:08PM|#

Andrew,

Many have tried, every one a pretender. Jason Bourne is the fisk master.

http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/F/fisking.html

eponymous|11.8.04 @ 4:20PM|#

is there Democrat Liberty Caucus to match the Republicans'? (click url to see the chapter in your state)

eponymous|11.8.04 @ 4:24PM|#

err, click my name i guess for the republican liberty caucus page listing states in which chapters are located

the fact that dems have no organized faction representing liberty interests, as they do racial, gender and labor classifications, tells all one needs to know about the motives of the dems poaching for votes in this forum

|11.8.04 @ 4:36PM|#

"is there Democrat Liberty Caucus to match the Republicans'?"

Yes.

http://www.progress.org/dfc/

Probably not sufficiently "pure" for some of us. But very sensible. I know I could see voting for candidates who ran on this platform.

|11.8.04 @ 4:40PM|#

JDOG - if you make around $80,000 and pay 42% of it in taxes you are a fool. Go see any tax professional -- even the worse one will be able to say you a bundle.

eponymous|11.8.04 @ 4:45PM|#

i'll give you credit for putting up a site that quickly, but it looks like you still have 49 states to go with only MD having a chapter

|11.8.04 @ 5:10PM|#

thoreau:

My question about the Republicans wanting to put you in jail is more pointed than the opinion of your prof would suggest. What is ANY area of civil liberties where the Republicans lock you up but the Dems don't? I have heard no more proposals to lock people up on one side than on the other.

Also, not to be unromantic, but the marriage issue IS a tax and survivorship issue more than anything else. It isn't about being locked up.

|11.8.04 @ 5:17PM|#

"maybe if they flirt enough, the GOP will get jealous.and send us a dozen
roses.."

Don't hold your breath.

Speaking for myself, of course (a Republican), I'd
rather push seashells up my nose than court theLibertarian
Party.

|11.8.04 @ 5:20PM|#

If libertariand just join the Democrats we get lost. A more effective approach is to take a sometimes inside, sometimes outside approach, culling the Dem caucuses of their most antiliberty members.

In 1998, the Democratic candidate for District Attorney here in Dane County (Madison WI and environs) was exceptionally prohibitionist, meanwhile the Republican was a moderate, appointed by Tommy Thompson to fill a vacancy. I recruited Defence Attorney Peter Steinberg to run LP, on a single issue plank of ending marijuana prosecutions. When Peter took nearly half the campus area vote, the Republican survived, the only GOP candidate to carry the County. This swayed our area Dem. State Legislators, none of whom wanted to be singled out for similar tratment in the next cycle.

This year the LP ran an anti-tax candidate for Russ Feingold's US Senate seat. I've told the Dem heirarchy that unless they can persuade Herb Kohl to retire, or change his stripes on Drug and Civil liberties policy, I'll be runnning as a spoiler from the left. The Republican know that in that event, their best chance will be a non-fundamentalistwho won't scare the Dem. base out of defecting.

|11.8.04 @ 5:27PM|#

Hey, sugar, you know you need a party that will treat you right. When's the Republicans ever done anything for you? Come on, I got what you want right here. Oh yeah. Look, here's a draft of a marijuana decriminalization bill. When has Bush ever promised you that? What? Aw, come on, baby, you know I'll introduce this one. You just gotta give me some time. The legislative calendar is booked.

Oh, wait just a minute, I have to chase Hillary away.

OK, I'm back. Now where were we? Oh, yeah, what I was going to do for you. You know those 48 Democratic Senators who voted for the Patriot Act? Well, some of them are friends of mine. And if you're my girl, you know some of them will turn around on it. Those Republicans would never do that for you.

Now why don't we just get a little more freaky here, sugar. Yeah, just lie down, and I'll tell you all the things I'm gonna do for you. We're the urban party, so you know if anybody has the will to get rid of those farm subsidies it will be us, you better believe it baby! And you hear that music in the background? Well, you know it's Ashcroft who wants to censor it. Us, on the other hand, well, we got a gag order enforced against Tipper Gore, so now it's all good on the music. Yeah, John Edwards went to court himself to get the order. Because nothing's too good for you!

So you libertarians just leave behind that old Republican Party, because they don't treat you right, and come here with us Democrats. We got the good stuff baby, oh yeah! Just promise me you won't change your mind when they send you those dozen roses and a promise of fiscal restraint. You have any idea how much those wars cost?

Cuz you know I'd never lie to you, baby!

Mark Bahner|11.8.04 @ 5:46PM|#

"I doubt more than a tiny fraction of even self-identified libertarians vote LP..."

"Faux," Julian. You forgot the "faux"...i.e.,:

"I doubt more than a tiny fraction of even self identified faux libertarians vote LP..."

ALL ***real*** libertarians vote Libertarian. After all, the Libertarian candidates are real libertarians. And no other party runs candidates who are even close. (Unless one happens to reside in the 14th Congressional District of Texas.)

Mark Bahner (REAL libertarian)

|11.8.04 @ 6:01PM|#

Run a decent candidate. Get a few decent current-issues soundbites. Do a commercial with Clint Eastwood, Kurt Russell, or Drew Carey (or one of each). Watch the interest in liberty and libertarian issues spike.

|11.8.04 @ 6:38PM|#

Andrew,

Given that your argument was that thoreau was an automatic vote for the Democrats, you were indeed successfully fisked, and your rebuttal doesn't provide you any help in that regard.

B Beatty,

Well, one has to ask, why do you come to a blog largely populated by libertarians then? Anyway, after your pathetic performance on election night, I think it can be reasonably said that we are better off without likes jackasses like you.

eponymous,

I'll note now that you haven't repeated or defended your earlier moronic claims.

Second of all, what good has this Liberty Caucus done? None as far as I can tell. The things that Republicans have been wrong for the past several decades they remain wrong on, thus there is no reason to take such efforts seriously.

|11.8.04 @ 6:44PM|#

Jason-

OK, you make a good point. I guess I tell myself that the GOP violates civil liberties because they want to and the Dems because they have to. Sort of like how a lot of people tell themselves that Democrats spend lots on entitlements because they want to and Republicans because they have to.

The sad fact is that neither party is paying much attention to the ACLU or the National Taxpayers Union (or whatever the group is that Rick Barton always links to in defense of Congressional Republicans). The only thing you can really say for the GOP on domestic policy is that they support tax cuts, but they aren't supporting any spending cuts to go along with it. That's hardly a recipe for fiscal sanity, even if it is better than nothing.

|11.8.04 @ 6:47PM|#

BTW, the previous message was addressed to Jason Ligon, not Jason Bourne.

|11.8.04 @ 6:54PM|#

thoreau,

Do that again, and I'll have to assasinate you. :)

|11.8.04 @ 6:55PM|#

Concerning gay marriage, I guess the Republicans figure "Liberty" means "ensuring that soccer mommies in the Bible Belt never have to feel offended."

|11.8.04 @ 9:09PM|#

"Concerning gay marriage, I guess the Republicans figure "Liberty" means "ensuring that soccer mommies in the Bible Belt never have to feel offended."

I'll keep asking this question: how do we appeal to Soccer/Security Moms?

eponymous|11.9.04 @ 12:27AM|#

jason bourne,

i note that as a boardwarrior you're a chickenshit who requires too much attention for my taste, as i don't feel the need to respond to every post that differs from mine when there are plenty of other folks offering rebuttals

given your disagreeable manner of presentation, you can assume in the future that i unpersuaded by whatever you may have written after me

others responded appropriately to your 'moronic' challenge, to my assertion that republicans are the party of liberty, which as far as i can tell originates entirely from your obsession with winding up in a texas jail

your fantasy life aside, the us supreme court has already determined that homosexual practices (between consenting adults) are constitutionally protected and most republicans favor civil unions

|11.9.04 @ 1:45AM|#

eponymous,

i note that as a boardwarrior you're a chickenshit who requires too much attention for my taste...

A chickenshit who called you out on your chickenshit behavior. :) Let's note that none of your comments actually addressed my cogent and on point rebuttal. The crowd here knows who is the real coward, and that happens to be you. And despite your effort to spin the facts otherwise, no one has defended your moronic ramblings.

the us supreme court has already determined that homosexual practices (between consenting adults) are constitutionally protected...

Which as I recall, you opposed, as did the Bush administration; remember, the Bush administration filed a brief in favor of Texas, arguing that states should be able to pass whatever "morals" laws they wish to. And the court did not argue that they were constitutionally protected; it did argue that one could not discriminate as Texas did between heterosexual and homosexual couples. At least learn the contents of the case law you discuss (in other words, read the fucking opinion). That sound is me laughing at your absolute ignorance.

...and most republicans favor civil unions

Prove it.

|11.9.04 @ 2:27AM|#

eponymous,

Let's note that the Texas Republican Party platform for 2004 contains the same language concerning consensual sodomy (it should be illegal), etc., that the 2000 platform contained.

http://www.texasgop.org/library/RPTPlatform2004.pdf

Note the language in the North Carolina Republican Party platform:

http://www.ncgop.org/reference/platform.html


BTW, somehow interpreting silence as support for your views concerning the Republican party is even more moronic than your earlier comments.

|11.9.04 @ 7:47AM|#

ernest,

Can you address the veracity of my comments or not? Do they contain any falsities, or do they have merit?

It seems that not is your option, since your modus operandi is to attack my personality. It may be the case that I have an abrasive personality, but that is hardly meritworthy criticism of my comments. In other words, like the a number of jerks here your main means of attacking me is to attack whatever personality faults I might have; and this in turn demonstrates the vacuous nature of your comments.

|11.9.04 @ 8:42AM|#

My dear Jean-Gary-Jason,

whether your comments have merit or not is not my point, it's your multiple personality that's interesting and quite amusing.

Veracity? I doubt it's one of your virtues but then perhaps it is. Anyway, that doesn't matter -- I'm here for the entertainment.

|11.9.04 @ 10:01AM|#

ernest,

whether your comments have merit or not is not my point...

Then I can safely ignore your comments as those of a troll.

...it's your multiple personality that's interesting and quite amusing.

I don't have a multiple-personality. You are stupidly and ignorantly confusing having multiple web personas with a psychological disorder. I will admit that its kind of nice to laugh at your ignorance, but its depressing at the same time to see your self-fisking.

|11.9.04 @ 10:03AM|#

ernest,

Anyway, the OWNERS of this blog have specifically stated that delving into this issue - of my identity - is something they frown upon. So, like Eric II, I ask you to respect the property rights of the owners of the this blog.