He’s only trying to remove Freedom of Speech in his continuing McCain-Feingold Constitution attacks.

I mean, either you can keep your Constitutionally protected freedoms, or you can *gasp* help elect a liberal.

I don’t see why the Libertarians aren’t willing to give up their freedoms and support the front-runner of the “Free Speech right don’t cover Political Speech” mode of thought.

Maybe they’re ageist? Perhaps they’re racist and don’t like his immigration policy. Maybe they’re anti-handicapped and his war injuries are the reason for the lack of support.

I suspect they don’t like his eye color myself.

But damn it couldn’t be his continuing and persistent attacks on the First Amendment, and Free Speech; Libertarians don’t care at all about Constitutional Freedoms and all that guff… right?

Ignore libertarian voters, and the GOP will suffer the consequences. And it pains me to say that, since I’m a loyal Republican.

Eric – Republicans for Barr

Ah, the disguised insult. Do you use this rationale in other parts of your daily life? “If you don’t eat Corn Flakes (like I do), you’re an idiot….of course I thought you were intelligent up until the point I found out that you don’t eat Corn Flakes.” Did it ever occur to you that Libertarians are simply looking for the fastest path to complete, public disdain for both major parties…I mean beyond the 20% approval rating that they currently enjoy?

dmann on July 5, 2008 at 3:17 PM

There. Fixed that.

18-1 on July 5, 2008 at 8:53 PM

Nailed it on the head. There are those who have studied Libertarian political philosophy, and have serious dedication to its ideals. But quite a few self-identified “Libertarians” are mostly all about the pot and the booty. They’re liberals, but not ready to come out of the political closet yet. After all their hippie parents were liberals and that’s sOoOOoOOoOo twenty years ago, like you know?

Smoking bans? Democrats in favor, Republicans generally opposed.

Seat Belt laws? Democrats strongly in favor, Republicans generally opposed.

Lowering the Speed Limits nationwide to 55 mph? Democrats in favor, majority of Republicans opposed.

Gambling restrictions? Some Democrats in favor of loosening restrictions, Some Republicans in favor of loosening restrictions.

Legalized prostitution? Most Democrats opposed, most Republicans opposed.

Legalized marijuana? Some Democrats in favor, some Republicans in favor.

Ending Affirmative Action quotas? All Democrats strongly opposed, most Republicans strongly in favor.

Protection Gun Rights? Most Democrats opposed, virtually all Republicans in favor.

Regulating people’s eating habits, i.e. bans on Transfats in foods? Most Democrats in favor, Republicans virtually all opposed.

We could go on and on. But the record is clear. With the exception of legalized prostitution, Republicans are clearly ahead on the Live and Let Live vs. Nanny-State scale.

FreeVillage is clearly uninformed, or just another Leftwing hack trying to convince libertarians that the Democrat Party is a better home for them, rather than the GOP. They tried this slick maneuver in 2006, and it worked to some extent. All we libertarians got was more big government, and more Nanny-State laws. Libertarians have learned from that dreadful mistake. In 2008, we are all solidly behind Libertarian Bob Barr, with a few others supporting McCain. Virtually no libertarians are backing Obama this year.

Eric Dondero, Publisher
Libertarian Republican blog

Fmr. Senior Aide, US Congressman Ron Paul, 1997-2003
Fmr. Libertarian National Committeeman 1986/87
Founder, Republican Liberty Caucus, 1990

Rasmussen reports that Libertarians prefer Sen. Obama to Sen. McCain. (via memeorandum) While Hot Air questions the classifications used by Rasmussen, I wonder if there might be something to this result. Back in January, the Volokh Conspiracy asked fo…

TheBigOldDog on July 5, 2008 at 5:13 PM

I agree with you completely and I am living in this world. I know Obama will expanded bloated systems way more then McCain.

My point was to explain why libertarians didn’t like McCain.
David

Between a purely totalitarian Republican party who favors more government on every single issue, and socially sane Democrats, the principled libertarians may feel they have no choice but to go with the Democrats as the lesser of the evils.

RP attracted, whatever his intentions, every extreme nutball on the map, and when they got together to form clubs they somehow inexplicably decided they were “Libertarians.” At that point, they flooded the LP (which was already teetering because of the BDS issue – combined with the natural “against whomever is in power” thing the LP has going on).

It’s too bad, because the LP had a shot in the late 1990s at gaining some much-needed respectability. Not any kind of power, but more the sort of influence that comes from providing an intellectual base for the Republicans’ economic ideas.

Dragging the hippies and Troofers back in was the “inappropriate canine relationship” that did that process in.

Too bad, looks like the Libertarians who don’t speak “cracktard” may have to vote Republican for the next decade or two.

I guess the illegal pot is still getting through.

(O’wow, man, Barack spelled backwards is Scarab! Like the beetle… which means Obama is… the fifth Beatle, duuuude!)

I’m not so sure. I meet many “libertarians” whose political philosophy is pretty much the same as Obama except a desire to formally legalize drugs. Get them talking about the environment for example, and you’ll pretty much the exact opposite of what a real libertarian would support.

I think the Libertarian Party made a cataclysmic mistake in going so hard after pothead college students, and we are merely seeing the results.

I very much doubt the U.S. Libertarian Party sought the student pothead demographic. One of the logical outcomes of the non-initiation of force principle is that, as an adult, one has the Right to treat one’s own body as one wishes. It’s not there for the purpose of getting stoners aboard the Libertarian bandwagon; and anyway, pothead college students are almost always Greenies. The only freedoms they care about is the freedom to get stoned and the freedom to suck Nanny State’s tits. In every other respect they are closet totalitarians; you know… what dozy Conservatives got sucked into calling “liberals”. My own country, New Zealand, has a Libertarian Party, too, except the leadership is Randian rather than Rothbardian, but New Zealand’s potheads students would ~NEVER~ vote for LibertariaNZ because they know the Party would dismantle their precious nanny state and destroy all their hopes of New Zealand becoming a socialist controlled agrarian backwater.

Tony.

Of course, most libertarians are as dumb as a box of sand, so what really is the difference?

Trust me on this: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS ABOUT AS FAR AWAY ON THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM AS YOU CAN POSSIBLY GET FROM LIBERTARIANISM.

He is the direct anti-thesis of a libertarian. He is a Fascist/Communist who scored a perfect 100 on the National Journal index as the most Leftist member of the entire US Senate.

Rasmussen is insane if he thinks any libertarians support Obama.

Libertarian still means what it always did, less government! This poll is absurd at best and yet another attempt by the media to redefine language and history to fit The Messiahlair’s message that change is all that matters. Obama is the antithesis of a true Libertarian.

dmann on July 5, 2008 at 2:52 PM

I’m not so sure. I meet many “libertarians” whose political philosophy is pretty much the same as Obama except a desire to formally legalize drugs. Get them talking about the environment for example, and you’ll pretty much the exact opposite of what a real libertarian would support.

I think the Libertarian Party made a cataclysmic mistake in going so hard after pothead college students, and we are merely seeing the results.

TheBigOldDog on July 5, 2008 at 6:18 PM

They’re insane. Nothing libertarian about having the “trans fat police” rip food out of your mouth or reach in your shirt and measure your love handles.

Also, it is stupid to expect the Blue-dogs and Republican minority to quell the socialist ascendancy if Obama wins. The blue dogs are sadly much more about barking than biting. They won’t stand up to the Ried-Pelosi Commisariat.