John Hawkins over at Right Wing News has pulled no punches when it comes to Libertarians. I've had the pleasure of meeting John and he's a very nice guy. Here's his latest:
I know some people might say that if the Libertarian Party gathers a high percentage of the vote, it forces the two mainstream parties to try to go after their voters, but that’s not true, because Libertarians have beliefs that are so far out of the mainstream that it’s impossible to try to cater exclusively to them. When you’re talking about people (many of them at least) who favor legalizing crack and prostitution, favor open borders, favor abortion without restriction, gay marriage, essentially oppose any and all government intelligence programs designed to stop Al-Qaeda from killing Americans, then it’s practically a given that no politician can make them happy on most issues without alienating 90% of the general public at the same time. Since, as a politician, you know going in that you can’t truly make Libertarians happy, all you can do to reach out to Libertarians is emphasize any parts of your platform where you happen to agree with them and hope they don’t notice everything else.
I don’t care how high your IQ is or how well you can explain economic theory, if you’re voting for Gary Johnson, you’re kind of a dufus.
Getting beyond that, what do we hear constantly? We’ve got to kick all of the social conservatives to the curb to appeal to the sort of people who are so out-of-touch-with-reality that they’re voting for Gary Johnson this year.
In case you haven't noticed, my fellow Kentucky Republicans, the libertarians are trying to take over our party.
As a followup to my previous comment (still in the moderation queue), I additionally provide the following information: https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/224486_10151828164669240_1896663188_n.jpg
Posted by: Ken Moellman | October 26, 2012 at 12:49 PM
John Hawkins presents the FUD sound-bites and bumper-sticker-slogans on Libertarians, as presented by both Republicans and Democrats.
Do Libertarians want a society of crackheads? Of course not.
But Libertarians also recognize that the War on Drugs has been a dismal failure. Beyond the moral objection to a government entity telling individuals what they can and cannot do, it has also cost $1T in federal enforcement alone. The rate of addiction -- and generally, people accept that addiction is the real problem with drug use -- over the course of the war on drugs has remained practically unchanged. We incarcerate people with addiction problems -- some with real psychological problems -- and given them no rehabilitation. Hello, recidivism!
So basically, the War on Drugs has been a $1T waste, on it's face.
Then you add in all the other, often incalculable, costs; the burden on the court system, the cost of incarceration, the lost economic opportunity of those who get a felony when they're 18 and have the rest of their lives ruined, the increased border violence along our border, the people forced into practical slavery in Mexico, the militarization of our police forces, etc.
Has the War on Drugs failed? I would say yes. We need to treat addiction as a social disease, as many social health professionals will tell you.
Poll the public; ask them if drug addicts should go to jail, or go to rehab. Who's out of touch on the issue?
The abortion issue cuts across all political lines. As a pro-life Libertarian, personally, I can tell you that the breakdown of the issue, state by state and region by region, generally reflects the social attitudes within that region or state. In Kentucky, a significant majority of our members are pro-life, with the ratio being flipped in the Louisville area. This reflects the particular segment of society. There are pro-life Democrats, and pro-choice Republicans. The abortion issue cuts across all lines.
Meanwhile, the most-likely way to overturn Roe (which was decided by a judicial appointee of an Establishment Republican president, by the way) is through Constitutional Amendment. That process starts in Congress and skips the President. Republicans controlled the House and Senate from 2000 - 2006. How many times did they pass such an Amendment? Oh yeah, zero.
Republicans use the pro-life issue as a wedge issue; not to actually solve the problem. Personally, I find that more disgusting than the people who just don't understand that human life, from a purely biological standpoint, begins at conception.
Ask the average public about abortion. If they're pro-life, ask them if they support Republicans who talk big but do nothing on the issue.
Libertarians call for the end of government-sactioned marriages, period. Why do you need the government involved in blessing the relationship of two people, no matter what kind of relationship it is? Do I need a permission slip from mommy and daddy government to call someone my friend? The whole "gay marriage" issue is stupid. Remove government from marriage. The end.
Ask the average person if a gay couple and a straight couple should be treated the same under the law -- the same tax laws, the same right of survivorship.
Most Libertarians believe that people who want to come to America, to make a better life for themselves, should be welcomed with open arms. It's what our country is founded on! The "open borders" debate generally revolves around Mexicans, specifically. At one time or another in our history, we have turned people away who were seeking this better way, and it's generally considered a "bad thing", historically. The Irish, during the potato famine. The Jews, during WWII. History will find that the American policy of turning away starving Mexicans (starving, due in part to our stupid drug war) was wrong. Poll the average American. Ask them: If someone is starving in their country and wants to escape here to try to make a better life, should we let them? See who's on the right side of the issue.
Most Libertarians believe in a strong national defense. Not a pre-emptive strike (aka starting a war) defense. Most Libertarians are good with the initial retaliation against Afghanistan after 9/11; they hit us first, we strike back. Most were not good with Iraq, because they did nothing to us. Poll the average person, and ask them if we should have gone into Iraq, and if we took too long in Afghanistan because we stopped focusing on it.
See, I'm not against social-cons. I live a very conservative lifestyle myself (though I do drink and smoke; I have a little bit of fun).
I'm against stupid.
Thinking that making something illegal will make it go away is stupid. Hello? Prohibition, anyone?
Thinking that Republicans are serious about the abortion issue is stupid. Hello? 2000 - 2006.
Thinking that because two dudes or or chicks hook up somehow makes me love my wife any more or any less, or that without the government's consent I'd love my wife any less, is stupid.
Thinking that because some person came here from another country will somehow make me lose my job, is stupid.
And thinking that supporting Mitt Romney, who has held both pro and con positions on each of these issues over the course of his political career, is stupid.
People are free to be stupid; but to say "I don’t care how high your IQ is or how well you can explain economic theory, if you’re voting for Gary Johnson, you’re kind of a dufus" is really stupid. It's the same thing as saying, "I don't care how right you are; you're an idiot for being right, because I say so."
And of course, all of this is moot in Kentucky anyway. The Electoral College, a couple of studies, and basic math skills show that only 2 people can win Kentucky's 8 Electoral Votes anyway, and one of them isn't Obama.
Posted by: Ken Moellman | October 26, 2012 at 11:45 AM
http://fatlip.leoweekly.com/2012/10/25/massie-romney-a-rino-his-supporters-socialists/
Posted by: Sam | October 26, 2012 at 09:35 AM