To all Libertarians out there...

W

Westtexas

New member
I really don't mean to start a flame going here, but as I recall many Libbers out there had the mindset that if they were in a "Bush" state, they would vote for Browne because it wouldn't hurt Bush, he would win the state anyway. Well, now we've got a president who won the electoral college, but not the popular majority. This puts him in a weakened political position, and really IS the reason we had to endure this conflict with Gore after the election. If Bush had won the popular vote, Gore would have had to shut up and sit down. One of his major arguments to stay in and fight was that he was the candidate selected by the "majority of Americans". I hate to say "told you so", but I will:).


We all came an inch away from swearing in Gore yesterday, if things had gone differently with the Supreme Court...

Humbly offered as food for thought...
 
OK, I'll take the bait ...

1. The reason we "had to endure this conflict with Gore after the election" was because the state of Florida was so tight. This had nothing to do with the libertarian popular vote. As it worked out, the state most critical to the final electoral college vote was the state with one of the tightest popular votes. And, I'll point out, a state whose polls and voters were certainly affected by the egregious media coverage that dark night ...

2. If you want to get upset about something regarding the popular vote, get upset about not counting absentee ballots. I don't know how many states this affects, but I understand that there were over 1mm absentee ballots not counted in California because Gore's margin of victory was almost 1.3mm votes. Compare that to the number of Browne votes in CA - 44,292.

3. Finally, if the Republican party wants more votes from libertarians, then they had better continue their return to their roots. I'm feeling better about Republicans lately, and even changed my affiliation back to that party ... too bad we have one of the worst RINO examples in my own state - John McCain.

Libertarians and Browne supporters didn't affect this race at all, IMHO. OTOH, we should give all those Nader supporters a kiss. ;) Hopefully, they've given us between 2 and 4 years to remind Americans of what made this country great. If we don't straighten people out by then, we can all look forward to another leftist in the Oval Office ...

Regards from AZ
 
I am one of those libertarians (not Libertarians...) and I admit that I did vote for Bush. I walked into it with my eyes open, though. I was, and still am, fully aware that GWB is about as pro-gun as my Mom. (In other words, not at all.) I just didn't want to see President Gore.

So now Bush is in, and I don't hear too much about rolling back any of the gun control legislation that Clinton has saddled us with over the past eight years. It wouldn't matter if he skated in with 95% of the vote, he'd still be the same anti-gun, pro-state career pol that he is now.

So what's the point? I'm going to continue to vote for Libertarians in all state, local, and sub-Presidential national elections. If that hurts the Republicans, well, maybe they'll sit up and take notice, and stop selling out our Second Amendment rights.

Later,
Chris
 
I voted for the man that I wanted to be President. Maybe he didn't stand a chance, but it's my vote, and no one else has any business criticizing it. Time will tell how this administration treats gun-owners. BTW, this is not the only civil liberty that matters to me.
 
Dear Westtexas,

Gee! Bush just became President and you’re already finding excuses for
the gun control you apparently expect him to implement!! So now it will
be the Libertarians’ fault when Bush signs gun control legislation as he
promised last August - LONG before the “chad fight” in Florida.

Perhaps, as an apologist-before-the-fact for Republican gun control, you
can explain how Bush knew the Libertarians were going to put him in this
sorely weakened position so long before the election. (?)

It is to laugh! :D

Bush advocates gun control and Republicans say “Bush doesn’t really
mean it! He’s only saying what he has to say to get elected!”

Now that Bush is President, if he supports gun control, it is the fault of the
Libertarians for not supporting Bush’s original gun control.

Oy! It makes me wonder if Republicans have any thought process left other
than “Bush is not as bad as Gore.”
-----

Find me a gun control law that does NOT have a Republican signature on
it. You can’t.

Find me a single policy, procedure, ordnance, law or gun control directive
of ANY kind that the Libertarians have supported. Again, you can’t.

Republicans have supported (at least to some extent) every dictatorial law
since Prohibition.

Whether Bush is better than Gore remains to be seen. I could make the
argument that Bush is MORE dangerous than Gore because Bush’s
incremental destruction of the Second Amendment, Bill of Rights, and our
Constitution is MORE likely to succeed!

Democrats are to Republicans as Budweiser is to Bud Light. Just as too
much beer can lead to fuzzy thinking and disaster, so do both the major
parties.

So, Mr. Westtexas, go ahead and have your “I told you so” while you can.
Before half his term is over, I bet you that Bush signs gun control
legislation AND you find him faultless. With bated breath, I anxiously
await to see if you will blame the Democrats, Libertarians or Eskimos for
Bush’s signature on the next major erosion of our Republic. ;)

Unless and until Bush reduces our gun control burden, he is merely
less of an immediate threat to our liberty than is Gore.

So let's make a personal wager!

IF Bush reverses our slide into gun control tyranny, I will apologize
to you and to President Bush in public and in writing.

IFBush signs one bit of gun control legislation, then you owe me and all
libertarians and Libertarians an apology.

Fair?

(Right hand extended, daring you to shake and confirm the bet.)
 
Dennis, you're on. If Bush passes one more bit of gun control legislation, I can guarantee you that NO ONE will be more angry at the Republican party than I. But, the fact remains, we have a split congress, at least as far as the Senate is concerned, and a president with no mandate, thanks to loss of the popular vote. It is certainly not the fault of the Libs altogether, but it did contribute to it. If you're looking for me to make excuses for Bush backing down on gun control, I'm not going to. If he crosses us there will be no support for him on my part in four years. But, if you think there is any comparison between Gore and Bush on gun control, then you are fooling yourself. I sleep much better with Bush in the White House tonight. I hope you do as well.

(extending right hand to take the bet!)

Best Wishes :D

Westtexas
 
Westtexas,

You know, all in all, this is not a bad bet!

We may finally meet each other, maybe share a steak, sip a libation :rolleyes: , perhaps even visit Art Eatman! :D :D

PS. This is one bet I would love to lose! ;)
 
My guess as to why it was so close is that only half of the Americans eligible to vote voted. My libertarian vote had nothing at all to do with the election except to signal both parties in power my wishes. I only wish that somebody loses an election because of losing the (l)ibertarians. That will be a victory for us all.

BTW, wouldn't most folks agree that those who didn't vote were probably very likely conservatives who actually had a job so couldn't be "bused" to the polls? I guess the Republicans couldn't quite muster the enthusiasm that the Libertarians can since more Libertarians exercise the franchise percentage-wise than Republicans or Democrats.
 
Let's put a finer point on this ...

Browne received only about 382,000 votes, as I recall. Give them all to Bush ... does he now have a 'mandate'? I don't think so ...

I share the concerns about our Republican 'friends'. I sorely hope they pleasantly surprise us with backbone. One ray of light ... they showed more backbone in Florida than I expected - I hope it is a sign of courage to come.

Regards from AZ
 
Jeff, The Reps wanted to win as much as Gore did, so a backbone in FL is no evidence of someone who will fight for gun rights. IMO the only gun control legislation that will make it passed the Congress in the next 4 years will be the AWB sunset revival. Bush will sign it, and that will be that. Gun control is not something on which the Dems will hang their collective hat, and they know it. It virtually cost them the prez election. The key is to battle the local laws in your area.
 
Westtexas, here's another point to ponder: Clinton didn't win a majority of the popular vote in either 1992 or 1996. Why is it that now, with Bush in office, that you're worried about the popular vote constituting a mandate?

Clinton seldom says anything I agree with, but he called it right when he said the reason Democrats lost this election was because of the NRA.

Neither the NRA nor the Libertarian Party is perfect, but I'm pleased to be a member of both.
 
If Bush had articulated a platform that appealed to a majority of Americans, he would have received a majority of the popular vote and wouldn't be in the fix he is. As it was both Bush and Gore were trying hard to put forth ambiguous statemnets that opposing sides of an issue could take comfort it. There was little real difference in thier stated positions. They were trampling all over each other to get to the perceived center.

When you flip a coin you are not surprised when it comes up heads half the time and tails half the time. So if the candidates appear identical, is anyone surprised when each receives 50% of the vote?
 
I will say this for W. He has impressed me thus far, and it is only day 3. His cabinet picks are decent enough with a couple being outstanding. He's doing better than GHWB IMO. I hope he keeps it up. Maybe his actions will speak louder than his words. He's a far sight better than our other alternative so we did get the lessor of two evils.
 
My $.02

To All:

There is, essentially, one way to earn the real respect of President Bush, and his realalliance[/i].

Are you prepared for this?

Make a real alliegance instead of our usual bickering.

Look at how this worked.

We threw everything behind Bush - Freedom First, as the NRA says. Cheney was a clear statement in response. Don't forget the real outrage from the Left when he was finally picked... "the most pro-gun congressman" alive, according to Handgun Control, Inc.

That's an unspoken gesture that is unmistakably directed on this entire issue.

Look at the support in return that gun owners provided to President Bush during the coup attempt by the Vice President. We had Republicans on the streets, for crying out loud - hundreds of thousands of them, across the nation. Gun owners were mobilized like never before.

The NRA was there with over four million members, nearly half of them acquired within the year. That's 100 million dollars in the war chest of just one organization dedicated to preserving our freedom. Many folks take issue - and I'm often one of them - about the amount of money that the NRA solicits, in return for the practical victories we get in return. But think of the leverage four million Gore supporters would have had. How would you have liked to face a four-million-member HCI last December, with 100 million dollars in a fist?

Hell, we've got rifles - and I'd be afraid of that.

The Free Republic was there, and loud. The Tyranny Response Team was there, and angry. We put people where it made a difference - on the street, in the face of those who were not only willing to take the Republic all the way - they were doing it.

That was payback from us, to then-candidate Bush, for taking our side.

And it worked.

Now President Bush has appointed Condoleeza Rice, a self-described "absolute Second Amendment purist" who watched her father sit with the other neighborhood men in the evening, keeping bigoted thugs away from their homes by the quiet presence of loaded rifles in their hands.

John Ashcroft's nastiest enemies in the confirmation hearings were abortion rights advocates - and any champion of gun control with a remaining vestige of statesmanship. Teddy Kennedy was there in all his bloated glory, as was the head of HCI. Busy before the Senate, instead of doing whatever it is he does in exchange for his HCI salary.

When was the last time you saw him?

Look at the President's cabinet. Brilliant. If we look at the threats against liberty and life and America, really deep down inside - what's out there, gathering against the dream of our Republic?

China. Mass destruction. In these United States, the same things that are happening in the United Kingdom right now. An interesting interview is at this link:

http://www.dxmarket.com/worldnetdaily/products/B0071.html

You think we have it bad? Read this:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/0101/21/world/world2.html

Jack Straw is the U.K. Home Secretary. Notice his comments at the end of the article. Would you put up with that?

Arms are the means to a defense. We understand that. That's why we have them... and why we're free. That understood, where is our alliance? Someone <i>has</i> to do it sometimes. Right now, in my opinion, is one of those times.

It's by consent. That's the vote. We have always the power to draw that back... because ultimately it's rifles, not politics, that makes that decision in these United States.

Every power in government is derived from the People.

That is the only condition under which free Men may accept to live. It is, that which without, Death is a welcome companion.

Best regards,

Robert Teesdale
robert@teesdale.com
http://www.teesdale.com
 
Oh sure, he picked some good ones allright. Ashcroft is already saying he doesn't see anything unconstitutional about Feinsteins gun laws. Sure am hearing a lot about abortion though, as if that's the only issue in this country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top