2008: Who's Up?

[tricky]

Originally Posted by Ryan

There isn't a chance in hell. Like I've always said, 90% of the people who claim to be Libertarians are really just Republicans who don't like to pay taxes and want to be able to buy grenade launchers at the sporting goods store. Start questioning them on the actual Libertarian platform and they'll turn into a puddle of water.

enlighten me what YOU think is the actual libertarian platform...? if you haven't seen my posts, i am the real lp

[tricky]

ps.

Executive Summary of The Libertarian Party

clicky

[thin man IYFF]

Fox news and AM Radio vs CNN and Hollywood

actually, I agree with Ryan...Hilary will run and I believe whe will be the Dem nominee...as far as the Repubs go I dont have a guess. Although, if national security is heavily threatened again I think it would hurt Hilary's bid as a woman (not a Democrat)...I just cant see American's rallying around a woman to be the Commander in Chief, as wrong as that might be...

I do believe that no matter who runs it will be another mud slingin, name callin, dirty fight that nobody from either party should be too proud of. But that's politics.

Originally Posted by thin man IYFF

Although, if national security is heavily threatened again I think it would hurt Hilary's bid as a woman (not a Democrat)...I just cant see American's rallying around a woman to be the Commander in Chief, as wrong as that might be...

Perhaps, but she's sitting on the armed services committee and serving well and not as a leftist.

I think she does have some liability on the issue but probably not as much as might be commonly perceived.

I think she could make a substantial candidate... she's taking some calculated risks and moving slowly enough on them that she can advance or retreat depending on where the wind blows. Her risk is moving too far right and getting the GHWB effect of not getting one's base out....and I doubt she'll have the benefit of a Perot

[thin man IYFF]

Originally Posted by xiannaix

Perhaps, but she's sitting on the armed services committee and serving well and not as a leftist.

I think she does have some liability on the issue but probably not as much as might be commonly perceived.

I think she could make a substantial candidate... she's taking some calculated risks and moving slowly enough on them that she can advance or retreat depending on where the wind blows. Her risk is moving too far right and getting the GHWB effect of not getting one's base out....and I doubt she'll have the benefit of a Perot

I can agree with that.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by tricky

enlighten me what YOU think is the actual libertarian platform...? if you haven't seen my posts, i am the real lp

Oh I wasn't saying you weren't a Libertarian. But next time you hear some fratboy with a Bush sticker on the back of his SUV tell you he's a "Libertarian," just confirm with him that he wants less restriction on abortion rights, more freedom for homosexuals, gambling, prostitution, and drug legalization, no preemptive attacks on sovereign governments, and increased land rights for Native Americans. Nine out of ten of these "Libertarians" will make some remark about "lib-ruhls" and change the subject. The idea of "less government" to a typical conservative is simply that we need "less goverment" in their lives and in their pockeybooks, but that we should have extensive government intervention into everyone elses' lives. This is why the Libertarians never make any political progress, in my opinion, even though their political philosophy is pure and their core members have conviction.

[bfp]

Nobody convincing that I see yet. I'm sure Hillary will get elected. It's an ologarchy anyway, so it doesn't really matter. Everyone swears to change Washington, but as soon as they get their feet wet they want a piece of the pie.

[Element4040]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Oh I wasn't saying you weren't a Libertarian. But next time you hear some fratboy with a Bush sticker on the back of his SUV tell you he's a "Libertarian," just confirm with him that he wants less restriction on abortion rights, more freedom for homosexuals, gambling, prostitution, and drug legalization, no preemptive attacks on sovereign governments, and increased land rights for Native Americans. Nine out of ten of these "Libertarians" will make some remark about "lib-ruhls" and change the subject. The idea of "less government" to a typical conservative is simply that we need "less goverment" in their lives and in their pockeybooks, but that we should have extensive government intervention into everyone elses' lives. This is why the Libertarians never make any political progress, in my opinion, even though their political philosophy is pure and their core members have conviction.

Exactly right, my parent's who are conservative and understand their politics pretty well were shocked that I voted Libertarian for the exact points you mentioned. I told them yes, I don't think the government should be fighting a war on drugs or prostitution for that matter. My Step-Dad say's well, at least your not a Liberal, lol.

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by Ryan

There isn't a chance in hell. Like I've always said, 90% of the people who claim to be Libertarians are really just Republicans who don't like to pay taxes and want to be able to buy grenade launchers at the sporting goods store. Start questioning them on the actual Libertarian platform and they'll turn into a puddle of water.

What? But I need a grenade launcher to kill food for my family of 10 in the woods of montana.

I find myself agreeing alot with libertarian domestic ideas, not really sure if I agree with their foreign or economic policies though.

As far as who will run in '08...Gulliani, maybe McCain, and maybe Frist. As for the dems, I wouldn't have a clue, probably Hillary...but I'd like to see Dean and Clark run again.

[Ryan]

Don't count out Lieberman, either. He has gained a lot of respect amongst Republicans, even social conservatives. If the Dems could just "dress him up" a bit, he'd be a very viable candidate.

[Keith P]

If Gulliani runs he'll steal the election. He's definitely the repubs best bet. Count on some more shameless 9-11 references to secure the win.

[bfp]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Don't count out Lieberman, either. He has gained a lot of respect amongst Republicans, even social conservatives. If the Dems could just "dress him up" a bit, he'd be a very viable candidate.

I'd vote for him. I prob would have in 2004. I've spoken with alot of dems who call him a sell-out for some reason.

[Adam D]

I don't think either party has any solid up-and-comers for 2008. I doubt Hillary's potential run (which I don't see happening, anyway) would probably be as successful as Elizabeth Dole's.

But there's still another 3 years to go before all of that fires up, and I'm sure in that time somebody will be fleeced from both parties in that time.

[transparentaura]

Russ Feingold. He's got a good record, he votes his principles, even when he is the lone dem. I believe his was the only vote against the war, so the flip-flopper label won't stick. He works with republicans if its a good bill and doesn't cave to partisan pressure. The original McCain- Feingold bill was a lot different than what we ended up with after both parties watered it down to keep the special interest money rollin' in. I've followed his record for years and he is a decent politician among a lot of shitheads.

Originally Posted by Keith P

If Gulliani runs he'll steal the election. He's definitely the repubs best bet. Count on some more shameless 9-11 references to secure the win.

And if Hillary runs she'll not make similar shameless references to 9/11? She's a NY senator with boatloads of NYC support and she's on the armed services comittee...