Build the Party or Back the Candidate? Marco Rubio 2010
The 2010 United States Senate election in Florida will take place on November 2, 2010. First-term Senator Mel Martinez was elected in a very close race against Democrat Betty Castor in 2004 with 49% of the vote. Martinez announced on December 2, 2008 that he would not seek a second term to the Senate, and would resign prior to the end of his term. Highly regarded for his “principled, energetic and idea-driven leadership”, Republican Marco Rubio is a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010. Rubio is campaigning against Florida Governor Republican Charlie Christ, Democrat Kendrick Meek, U.S. Congressman Florida’s 17th congressional district, and Libertarian Alexander Snitker.
As such, I am faced with a problem. Often, I am confronted with the challenge of being loyal to the Libertarian Party in the face of logic. For, as logic sees it, the Libertarian Party has not a fighting chance in winning an election. However, I do realize with every loss comes a greater recognition of the Libertarian Party, and for some, that is enough. In this particular event, in which we have a senate race with a Libertarian candidate, Snitker, and a Republican, fiscally conservative candidate like Marco Rubio, I would have to side with logic, and vote for the latter.
As Rubio’s website states, www.marcorubio.com, from 2000-2008, Rubio served in the Florida House of Representatives. During this period, he served as Majority Whip, Majority Leader and Speaker of the House, effectively promoting an agenda of lower taxes, better schools, a leaner and more efficient government and free market empowerment. Rubio also helped spearhead Florida’s congressional and legislative redistricting effort. He chaired the House Select Committee on Property Rights, which crafted national model legislation to protect private property rights following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo v. City of New London decision that opened the door for eminent domain abuse.
During the two years prior to assuming the speakership, Rubio traveled around the state hosting “Idearaisers” to solicit Floridians’ input on ways to strengthen
Florida. The 100 best ideas were compiled into a book entitled “100 Innovative Ideas for Florida’s Future” which served as the basis for his term. All 100 ideas were passed by the Florida House. Fifty-seven of these ideas ultimately became law, including measures to crack down on gangs and sexual predators, promote energy efficient buildings, appliances and vehicles, and help small businesses obtain affordable health coverage. Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich hailed the effort as “a work of genius.”
In addition to these ideas, Rubio championed a major overhaul of the Florida tax system that would have eliminated all property taxes on primary residences in favor of a flat consumption tax. The effort garnered national attention, with Grover Norquist, president of the fiscally conservative Americans for Tax Reform, praising Rubio as “the most pro-taxpayer legislative leader in the country.”
Check Marco Rubio stances on the issues here: http://www.marcorubio.com/issues/
As I see it:
Marco Rubio understands the difference between the Federal Reserve system vs. sound money. Marco Rubio recognizes the Conservative policy of nonintervention vs. the Wilsonian/FDR/Bush/Obama interventionist policy. Maroc Rubio will immediately cosponsor H.R.1207 / S. 604 to Audit the Fed, and also support a move in monetary policy towards sound money backed by gold/silver. June 9, 2009, the Guetzloe Report stated Rubio said that he supports the Audit the Federal Reserve Bill. If he were an Elected Senator in the US Senate he would support this bill. Rubio will support a noninterventionist conservative foreign policy of peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none. Rubio will defend liberty and put the Constitution above all else, even his own desires for legislation, and seek to restore the Constitution.
Again, as logic see’s it, hopefully Libertarians realize we ought to throw our weight behind the candidate that maximizes our ideals in a venue such as the United States Senate, as well as a candidate that actually has a fighting chance! The logic speaks for itself:
Rubio’s Endorsements:
Congressman Jeff Miller of Florida
Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida
Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana
Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin
Congressman Tom Price of Georgia
U.S. Senator from South Carolina Jim DeMint
U.S. Senator from Oklahoma James Inhofe
U.S. Senator from Oklahoma Tom Coburn
Former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas
Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey
State Senator Steve Oelrich
State Representative Steve Precourt
Former President George W. Bush’s political adviser Karl Rove
Prominent conservative author and talk show host Mark Levin
Prominent conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham
John Ellis “Jeb” Bush Jr.
George P. Bush
Family Research Council President Tony Perkins
Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist
President of the Club for Growth Chris Chocola
Former Republican presidential candidate and editor-in-chief of Forbes Steve Forbes
Snitker’s Endorsements
Retake Congress
Liberty Candidates
912 Candidates
Former Sentate Candidate Dennis F. Bradley
Fundraising
Candidate (Party) Receipts Disbursements Cash On Hand Debt
Charlie Crist (R) $8,999,140 $1,440,094 $7,559,045 $29,218
Kendrick Meek (D) $4,968,786 $1,599,432 $3,369,352 $0
Marco Rubio (R) $3,377,857 $1,290,754 $2,087,103 $13,252
Marion Thorpe (R) $310,438 $307,331 $3,107 $6,380
Maurice Ferre (D) $85,886 $46,086 $39,799 $0
Kevin Burns (D) $83,411 $81,836 $1,572 $65,470
Robert C. Smith (R) $25,426 $18,646 $6,778 $0
Gwyndolyn McClellan (R) $3,431 $3,431 $0 $0
Alexander Snitker (Lib.) $1,475 $741 $733 $0
Bernie DeCastro (R) $0 $0 $0 $0
Source: Federal Election Commission
Let’s just say, Rubio is the logical choice. Rubio has Snikter licked in the three major factors of winning an election: 1) Fundraising. 2) Endorsements. 3) Platform (Sniker has no competing issues, in fact, he is for the Fair Tax…). Yes, yes, Marco Rubio is a Republican, but thus my question, Build the Party or Back the Candidate?
As a caveat, Libertarians ought to have an open mind in making a public effort in helping Rubio win. I believe the Libertarian vote would obviously push Rubio over the edge to victory, and as such, putting the Libertarian Party in the unique position to receive some much needed political capital. Just a thought…
So tell me forum, do you side with logic?
In Liberty,
Jonathan Raof
Jonathan,
This is Alexander Snitker. I would like to Respond to Jonathan Raof and his logic.
Jonathan wrote
Marco Rubio understands the difference between the Federal Reserve system vs. sound money. Marco Rubio recognizes the Conservative policy of nonintervention vs. the Wilsonian/FDR/Bush/Obama interventionist policy. Maroc Rubio will immediately cosponsor H.R.1207 / S. 604 to Audit the Fed, and also support a move in monetary policy towards sound money backed by gold/silver. June 9, 2009, the Guetzloe Report stated Rubio said that he supports the Audit the Federal Reserve Bill. If he were an Elected Senator in the US Senate he would support this bill. Rubio will support a noninterventionist conservative foreign policy of peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none. Rubio will defend liberty and put the Constitution above all else, even his own desires for legislation, and seek to restore the Constitution.
These statements are mostly false.
1. Marco will not sign the 10th amendment pledge
2. Marco has only stated the Audit and has NOT spoke about ending the Federal Reserve.
3. Marco does not think the Fairtax is realistic.
From a Article in the Jacksonville Observer
“In the question and answer period, Mr. Rubio finally got into some specifics. Rubio said he favored the Fair Tax, but thinks it’s probably not realistic to think that it could be enacted, as it would require the total disbandment of the IRS … a notion that seemed very attractive to many of those in attendance. He said rather that he hopes that a “fairer, flatter” income tax could be worked out, so that the average taxpayer could fill out a return “on a postcard.””
4. Marco does not support a Non-interventionist foreign policy at all. Below is a quote from Marco at CPAC
“As I said earlier, there is no greater risk to this country than the risk posed by radical Islamic terrorists. Let me be clear about something. These terrorists aren’t trying to kill us because we offended them. They attack us because they want to impose their view of the world on as many people as they can, and America is standing in their way. We need to make it unmistakably clear that we will do whatever it takes, for however long it takes, to defeat radical Islamic terrorism.We will punish — we will punish their allies, like Iran — and we will stand with our allies, like Israel. We will target and we will destroy terrorist cells and the leaders of those cells. The ones that survive, we will capture them.
AUDIENCE: Marco!
RUBIO: We will get important — remember the Marco Polo thing I told you? We will capture them, we will get useful information from them and then we will bring them to justice, in front of a military tribunal in Guantanamo — as I said, in front of a military tribunal in Guantanamo, not a civilian courtroom in Manhattan. ”
That does not sound like the foreign policy of the Founders. This sounds like a Neo-conservative. He is laughing about Waterboarding people and is happy about it. He states that he will do whatever it takes. That means the constitution be dammed.
As a Libertarian I would look at the endorsements and see how many people on that list you actually agree with. I do not see that many who are any friends of the Libertarian Party.
Jonathan is attempting to pull the rug over your eyes. I do not know the reason but my guess is that Marco Rubio is scared and has put Jonathan up to it. See Marco knows that I WILL BEAT HIM IN THIS ELECTION. This is another attempt to take the party off Course.
And Rubio endorsed Scott Brown. Enough Said.
The Libertarians do have a decision. Choose the career politician or the Citizen candidate who will TEAR DOWN THE POLITICAL CLASS.
Jonathan, I do have another suggestion for you. Have Marco Rubio actually talk to me instead of avoiding me. I tried to talk to him but he will not return my calls. Why is that?
while you make a case for the individual principled decision of get a victory now with a libertarianish electable candidate from another (Republican) party, the fact remains there is a Libertarian Party candidate in said race that has not been shown to be less libertarian than the republican. As such you are right, we do have a problem. I think that libertarians being the free thinking individualists that we hold ourselves out to be, can individually deal with such question as who to vote for. Since we have an official (reasonably though not perfectly acceptable) candidate in our own party, it seems that an out of party endorsement –at the party level– is inappropriate. having said that, should a libertarian (even if a party member- at any level national, state, county, participating at any level –member, officer, etc can privately (if they wish) motivate close contacts with a nudge (where it is thought appropriate) for a candidate, even of another party.
Johnothan also wrote this
“As a caveat, Libertarians ought to have an open mind in making a public effort in helping Rubio win. I believe the Libertarian vote would obviously push Rubio over the edge to victory, and as such, putting the Libertarian Party in the unique position to receive some much needed political capital. Just a thought…”
Would a Republican ever support a Libertarian candidate?
It is plain to see that this is only a ploy to stop the Libertarian party and the momentum that we have. We must join together and work to build the Libertarian party here in Florida. We will overtake both the Republican and Democrat party with hard work.
The people are ready to hear the Libertarian message. The Republicans know this. That is why many are talking like Libertarians. Talk is cheap and the past actions of the Republican party show that they will say or do anything to get elected. Once in there they will continue to expand the federal government and take away more of our civil liberties.
If you think that my statements are false ask Marco Rubio a couple of questions
1. What are your thoughts on the Patriot Act?
2. Will you state right now on record that you will work to end the Federal Reserve?
3. Will you bring troops in non combat areas home and not allow US bases in Iraq permanently?
4. Will you sign the 10th Amendment pledge?
People are looking for Constitutional Conservatives (Libertarian) and Alexander Snitker is the only candidate that even comes close.
Alexander Snitker,
First off, thank you for your reply. It is good that you replied for some healthy debate. Please don’t take any disrespect or offense from my article and comments to come.
So, Rubio won’t sign the 10th amendment pledge. Well, regardless of this pledge’s impact on the campaign, we certainly can agree there really isn’t any. Rubio doesn’t have to sign a paper saying he acknowledges the merits of the 10th amendment. Other organizational endorsements, his voting record, and recent news reflects Rubio as a firm supporter of State’s rights. As Rubio stated: recently regarding Health Care reform: “I commend Attorney General McCollum’s efforts to prevent an unconstitutional federal health insurance mandate on Floridians. Washington’s big government politicians have proven there is no price they aren’t willing to pay to push through their health care takeover, even if it means violating the U.S. Constitution through this federal mandate. The proposed federal health care legislation runs contrary to America’s founding principles of limited government and individual freedom. The fact that even the non-partisan Congressional Research Service has raised concerns about its constitutionality is yet another example of how Democrats are all too willing to ignore the bounds of our Constitution to advance their big government agenda. It also demonstrates their contempt for the Tenth Amendment as they seek to empower the federal government at the expense of powers reserved to states and individuals. Hopefully, today’s election in Massachusetts will compel them to take a hard look at the error of their ways.”
Next, Mr. Snitker, you seem to have a problem with Rubio only saying he will only sponsor H.R. 1207, rather than being against the Federal Reserve entirely. Don’t have a problem with this Mr. Snitker, don’t expect Rubio (or yourself in the event you are elected) to even have a realistic chance at getting rid of the Fed in your tenure. Realistically, the greatest chance someone in the Senate position can have is help bring in more senators with the same ideology, or Expand on what achievements Representative Ron Paul has done. Heck, Ron Paul doesn’t even campaign on “ending the fed” anymore, for it just seems to radical of language. Instead, happy, politically suitable ground is found in advocating an audit, more transparency, and more accountability – all advocacies Rubio has.
Next, the fair tax. I was able to read about You, Mr. Snitker, and Rubio in a debate here about the fair tax: http://newsblaze.com/story/20100319074354zzzz.nb/topstory.html
Rubio called the tax unrealistic while you say no. Instead, Rubio prefers “modest tax cuts within the existing income tax structure.” I prefer this as well, in that I agree with the following comments that summarize my position well.
Mises critiques:
“There is only one word to describe the fact that the federal government now spends almost $3 trillion a year: obscene. At least 90 percent of what the federal government spends is unconstitutional, wasteful, or against the limited-government principles of the Founders. The only thing the FairTax does is change the way the state confiscates the wealth of its citizens. As Congressman Ron Paul says: “The real issue is total spending by government, not tax reform.”
Because the FairTax is a consumption tax, Murray Rothbard’s conclusion about consumption taxes is apropos:
“The consumption tax, on the other hand, can only be regarded as a payment for permission-to-live. It implies that a man will not be allowed to advance or even sustain his own life, unless he pays, off the top, a fee to the State for permission to do so. The consumption tax does not strike me, in its philosophical implications, as one whit more noble, or less presumptuous, than the income tax. The FairTax does nothing to tame the federal leviathan. The solution is nothing less than a drastic reduction or wholesale elimination of its revenue source. What is fair about allowing the government to confiscate 23 percent of the value of every new good and service? FairTax proponents may call it necessary legislation, but I call it highway robbery.”
These quotes were taken from another article I wrote: http://libertarianviewpoint.com/blog/?p=1219
So, yes, essentially, the issue is government spending, and not the tax system as a whole, I believe Rubio recognizes this point most of all.
Next, foreign policy, you say, Mr. Snitker, that Rubio is a Neoconservative in his foreign policy. While Rubio hasn’t been in a position to really impact the country’s foreign policy, there really isn’t anything we can go off of but what he is campaigning. As such, Rubio has consistently fought against government spending, including the forces that typically dominate the government’s balance sheet – intervention abroad. With Rubio’s firm commitment to controlling government spending, it is very unlikely he will vote to get involved in more entangling alliances. Additionally, Rubio has openly campaigned against intervention abroad as a whole. In your quote from Rubio to the audience about terrorists – so what? Rubio is saying he will defend against terrorism, and bring those that try to hurt us to Justice in the most appropriate venue. Further, I believe Gitmo is constitutionally justified, especially regarding Rubio’s use for it. Rubio is NOT saying anything about being on the offensive to make the world safe for democracy, nor is he saying he is looking for dragons to slay, so what’s the problem?
As far as the endorsements and what I think of them, it is irrelevant. The endorsements are there as more of a figurehead to represent that yes, Rubio has a bunch of important supporters…important supporters that are needed to win an election. It really is as simple as that.
I AM NOT PULLING THE RUG OVER ANYONE’S EYES, and please be mindful of what you say I am doing. We here at libertarianviewpoint.com expect a level of decorum from our commenters, and as such, this accusation is unacceptable. No one is scared here, and everything written is warranted and transparent. Marco Rubio did not put me up to this, though I kinda wish he had…wouldn’t that have been cool? From the perspective of someone that has been educated in Political Science very throughly, I don’t see how you are going to win. I do wish you good luck and I do appreciate your efforts. Unfortunately, I have to side with the logical choice in choosing a candidate – the one that can win, and the one that offers the greatest chance of a libertarian leaning senate. I am down for more debate on the matter, so feel free to respond, I would definitely change my mind. Further, Rubio endorsing Scott Brown is simply Rubio playing the political game. Politicians have to exchange favors in hope of receiving political capital all the time. It actually works. However, here is where lies the problem with the Libertarian Party, the complete lack of political capital.
Finally, you say: “Jonathan, I do have another suggestion for you. Have Marco Rubio actually talk to me instead of avoiding me. I tried to talk to him but he will not return my calls. Why is that?”
Mr. Snitker, I don’t know why Rubio won’t answer your calls…he is probably bussy on News programs, in public debates, and traveling Florida for fundraising events. The election is in November after all. Perhaps, just be persistent enough with him so he won’t have a choice but to respond.
Alexander Snitker,
You ask:
“Would a Republican ever support a Libertarian candidate?’
Yes, the Tea party movement is a perfect example of that.
Next, you say:
“It is plain to see that this is only a ploy to stop the Libertarian party and the momentum that we have. We must join together and work to build the Libertarian party here in Florida. We will overtake both the Republican and Democrat party with hard work.”
Oh gezz, this is not a ploy. This is politics. Republicans and Democrats a like are joining the 3rd party movement. In fact, this is the best time to be a 3rd party – but it still isn’t enough, and won’t be for some time. Additionally, it seems Libertarians can take a lesson from the Dems and Reps in that one CAN back other candidates from different parties!
You say:
“If you think that my statements are false ask Marco Rubio a couple of questions
1. What are your thoughts on the Patriot Act?
2. Will you state right now on record that you will work to end the Federal Reserve?
3. Will you bring troops in non combat areas home and not allow US bases in Iraq permanently?
4. Will you sign the 10th Amendment pledge?”
I just emailed his campaign site, I’ll let you know what he says…
Why can’t it be:
“People are looking for Constitutional Conservatives (Republican) and Marco Rubio is the only candidate that even comes close.” Whats the difference?
Lptbruce,
I am not sure, but are you agreeing with me?
First off; Marko Rubio is not for states rights. If he was he would not have been a strong supporter of the Carbon tax and cap & trade scams. As he promtes in a speech in front of the State House. Shown here in this video:
http://www.facebook.com/Xian75?v=app_2392950137&ref=profile#!/video/video.php?v=1209498074743
If states rights were important to him, he would not be pushing for the global tax on the state of Florida. Nor would he be saying Florida needs to be the international leader in this. A real patriot would have stood against this agenda and the extreme taxation it would bring. Lets not forget the fact that the whole carbon tax and cap & trade agenda comes from the United Nations. How is that protecting states rights? Allowing and supporting false science to tax the American people and the state of Florida on the behalf of the United Nations? That is so far from states rights and national sovereignty; and to think it is somewhat close is ridiculous.
If Marko Rubio was for lowering taxes; then again he would not have supported the Carbon tax agenda. This carbon tax would simply put a consumption tax on everything under the sun. Also if Marco Rubio was for lowering taxes; then why did property taxes go up in Miami while Rubio was city commissioner?
Foreign policy, again I go back to that video. If he had a planned foreign policy; then he would not be roling over and allowing the United Nations to dictate foreign policy. Which he did in this video supporting a United Nation’s policy to tax the planet. He sounds like a lap dog for the global banks; like the rest of the politicians that need to go.
If Marko Rubio was for the people of the state of Florida; where has be been during EVERY Tea Party group; including the big straw poll in Orlando? He doesn’t even have the decency to attend and speak, but claims to be a Tea Partier on mainstream news.
What happened to “throw the bums out” I don’t remember the slogan saying “move the bums to another political position”.
Jonathan you are free to think and write anything you wish and I will defend your right to do this.
The problem with this debate is that you are overlooking issues that I cannot. When I make a point that you cannot defend you just gloss over it or try to justify it by saying he is just playing politics. That may be ok with you but I have a problem with it.
I will admit that Marco has more money than I do. That will not change.
He has more establishment support than I do. This is not a good thing in my opinion.
I have given the Republican party chance after chance over the years to live up to what they campaign on and have been burned nearly every time. I did give Marco a chance on Sept 12th. I thought like you that instead of being competition I could be an ally. Sadly this is not the case. He is no friend of liberty or the Libertarian Party.
Every election cycle the Libertarian party is told to back the Republican party or we will split the vote. When are we going to take a stand and say enough is enough? I believe that this strategy is used to take our eye off of the true goal. To build a party that can win elections.
How can we begin to win elections? We need to have candidates in races who are in it to win it. I know that this will be a uphill climb but one that will be worth it. What we do in 2010 will help in 2012.
My question for you is this. Will you help us build the party or will you help Rubio get elected? Remember you can really only choose one path. I hope that you will join me in building the Libertarian party here in Florida.
Alexander Snitker,
I know there is a lot about politics that seem very demoralizing, like endorsements and fundraising, however, this is the political game. While it does seem libertarians are always told to back the Republican every election cycle in fear of splitting the vote, this seems just as redundant as the Libertarian party saying “It’s an uphill battle” and “what we do in x will help in y”. Maybe the Libertarian Party has just got it wrong.
I feel bad you think I am overlooking issues that you cannot. I don’t think you have made any points I have yet to be able to defend, would you like to cite examples?
I think I will back the candidate and build the party – but still need more time to educate myself. As of now, I see an advantage Libertarians can capitalize on if we give Rubio the extra push to guarantee him victory.
Your points that you glossed over
“So, Rubio won’t sign the 10th amendment pledge. Well, regardless of this pledge’s impact on the campaign, we certainly can agree there really isn’t any.”
If he is such a defender of states rights he should have no problem signing this. His refusal is a problem.
“Next, foreign policy, you say, Mr. Snitker, that Rubio is a Neoconservative in his foreign policy. While Rubio hasn’t been in a position to really impact the country’s foreign policy, there really isn’t anything we can go off of but what he is campaigning. As such, Rubio has consistently fought against government spending, including the forces that typically dominate the government’s balance sheet – intervention abroad. With Rubio’s firm commitment to controlling government spending, it is very unlikely he will vote to get involved in more entangling alliances. Additionally, Rubio has openly campaigned against intervention abroad as a whole.”
Everything I have ever heard him say tells a different story. You are hoping that his comment about controlling government spending somehow will translate into foreign policy. This will not be the case.
“Next, Mr. Snitker, you seem to have a problem with Rubio only saying he will only sponsor H.R. 1207, rather than being against the Federal Reserve entirely. Don’t have a problem with this Mr. Snitker, don’t expect Rubio (or yourself in the event you are elected) to even have a realistic chance at getting rid of the Fed in your tenure. Realistically, the greatest chance someone in the Senate position can have is help bring in more senators with the same ideology, or Expand on what achievements Representative Ron Paul has done. Heck, Ron Paul doesn’t even campaign on “ending the fed” anymore, for it just seems to radical of language. ”
Ron Paul wrote a book in 2009 called End the Fed. The audit is only the beginning and unless you talk about ending it as well why go through the audit.
“As far as the endorsements and what I think of them, it is irrelevant.”
This is the problem I have along with everything else I have seen with this candidate.
How can the Libertarian party capitalize on getting another Republican career politician elected to the senate? Please explain this. It will not grow the party at all. It will only shrink it.
“Maybe the Libertarian Party has just got it wrong.”
If you feel this way then why are you a member of the party?
You may think that politics is a game but I do not. Tell the troops we have dying overseas or the people in the states that love them that they are just part of a game. Tell that to the millions of Americans in this country out of work struggling to survive that this is just a game.
Alexander Snitker,
In listing the points I glossed over, you fail to even define what “glossed” means. I would consider the term “glossed over” to mean (in this context) responses that are borderline non-responsive. I am afraid I would identify your explanations to my “glossed” over points as in fact, “glossed over”. Why? The content speaks for itself. My comments/arguments are detailed enough to be triple the amount of explanation you have offered, so I am content in continuing to maintain I am not glossing over anything.
If politics is not a game of logic, strategy, and endurance, then what is it? Today, the art and science of politics is found in getting elected. Political theory, I would argue, would come after the campaign. As such, capitalize on Rubio’s refusal to not sign the 10th amendment pledge – you are running against him – but I guarantee you there will not be an impact. The 10th amendment pledge just doesn’t have the recognition and impact I guess a more established candidate would be attracted too. Rubio’s refusal to sign it should not be seen as a problem when this is his strategy and his campaign. If Rubio’s refusal to sign the 10th amendment pledge is really that big a deal, then may his mistakes yield consequences – however, they have not.
Regarding an excerpt of mine, you say:
“Everything I have ever heard him say tells a different story. You are hoping that his comment about controlling government spending somehow will translate into foreign policy. This will not be the case.”
This is the case. Government spending and foreign policy are more connected then you think. A foreign policy of intervention is based upon a government with fractional reserve banking and an unregulated money printing press. Rubio says, stop the funding, you stop the intervention.
Next, sure, H.R. 1207 can be seen as a pretext to ending the Fed entirely, however, as a logical campaign would see it, candidates need to market themselves and their platform in a way that is seen as least radical in fear of course of being radical. Radical, never attracts votes, and often yields electoral backlash. I believe Rubio understands this.
I am not sure about what is going on here: I say: “As far as the endorsements and what I think of them, it is irrelevant.”
You say: “This is the problem I have along with everything else I have seen with this candidate.” ….Care to elucidate?
You say: “How can the Libertarian party capitalize on getting another Republican career politician elected to the senate? Please explain this. It will not grow the party at all. It will only shrink it.”
Its all about Political Capital. If Rubio knows he has the Libertarians to thank for his victory, Taken from here: http://libertarianviewpoint.com/blog/?p=244: this ought to answer that:
“If the Libertarian Party endorsed Rubio, while not having a libertarian run in the U.S senate race in Florida, regardless of the outcome, it would pay off big in terms of political capital for the Libertarian Party. At such a point, this 36 year old promising politician will have our backs for the future – especially while being in office. You can do the math in terms of political capital yourselves, but in any event, that sum will be bigger then what we have now. Just think about it: Ron Paul running for President as a Republican – got the libertarian party more attention than it has had in years on a national level. Think of the many libertarians we got out it given the status of the Republican Party and how Ron Paul was subliminally directing everyone toward his libertarian roots. We are throwing our libertarian candidates out into the arena with nothing! In politics, in order to succeed, regardless of the message – you need political capital.”
Libertarians do have it wrong in the sense if libertarians are always told to back the Republican every election cycle in fear of splitting the vote, this seems just as redundant as the Libertarian party saying “It’s an uphill battle” and “what we do in x will help in y”. Meaning, maybe Libertarians are wrong in their redundancy. I am a happy member of the Libertarian Party for the ideology and philosophy, not because of how well they campaign.
You say: “You may think that politics is a game but I do not. Tell the troops we have dying overseas or the people in the states that love them that they are just part of a game. Tell that to the millions of Americans in this country out of work struggling to survive that this is just a game.”
Political theory and application is the explanation to tell the troops. Poor policy decisions as well. In no way does the political “campaign” game undermine the troops we have dying. This “game” has more to do with sociology then it does policy.
Cool, someone was writing about me in a political blog: http://thirdpartydaily.blogspot.com/2010/04/fl-snitker-vs-rubio-for-libertarian.html
They misspelled my last name though: it’s R A O F – Random Acts of Freedom
Christian Gadbois,
I know you are trying to call into question Rubio’s commitment to defending State’s rights by citing his endorsement of a Carbon Tax, however, this logic fails on face. It can be easily argued that it is the job of the federal government to protect the environment. Further, the federal government can easily justify a Cap and Trade Tax by invoking the Necessary and Proper Clause and still be constitutionally sound. So, Rubio’s APPARENT endorsement of Cap and Trade is not a good attack on Rubio’s commitment to State’s rights.
Now, the reason why I capitalized “apparent” above is because the majority of people see Rubio for what it says on his website, which says: http://www.marcorubio.com/issues/
“As a U.S. senator, I would oppose a national energy tax on American consumers, farmers and business owners. At a time when our economy is struggling, a cap-and-trade scheme would further strain family budgets and destroy jobs. Creating jobs in the energy sectors and becoming more energy efficient requires entrepreneurial innovation, not big government mandates. Instead of higher energy bills and job losses, the American people deserve a comprehensive, job-creating energy policy that promotes energy efficiency, alternative energy production and the development of our own natural resources.”
So..Rubio technically isn’t for Cap and Trade…
Further…
You do the same thing when arguing about foreign policy. So, because Rubio said in a speech he would entertain an idea about global cap and trade, he now represents the Wilsonian/FDR/Bush/Obama interventionist policy…I don’t think so. You say He sounds like a lap dog for the global banks, but I believe Democrats and Republicans win because they never say things like that in representing a political party…it sounds radical and really doesn’t make sense in the way you write it.
I know Rubio isn’t going to every Tea Party event, however, he also doesn’t go to every Republican event, and I’m sure he doesn’t go to every Constitutionalist Party event either, but does that make the man a Democrat?
in response to christian, jonathan says
“You do the same thing when arguing about foreign policy. So, because Rubio said in a speech he would entertain an idea about global cap and trade, he now represents the Wilsonian/FDR/Bush/Obama interventionist policy…I don’t think so. You say He sounds like a lap dog for the global banks, but I believe Democrats and Republicans win because they never say things like that in representing a political party…it sounds radical ”
where is it not wilsonian, etc? not calling for the 10th amendment pledge, or fed abolition, these arguments certainly do weaken (though they may not destroy) the case for serious libertarian consideration of rubio.
you asked if i were agreeing with you. to that i say it is a qualified yes and no. that answer was true both in a vacuum (the context of your article and my response) and in the broader context of christian and snitker additions to the discussion. if you do not follow what qualified yes and no means, i will try again here.
individual support – where justified by principled reasoning- can lead indiviual(ist)s including (libertarians/Libertarians) to their own conclusions re how to vote, wether to privately influence others, wether to publicly endorse on their own behalf, wether to support lending the party’s name to an endorsement of a candidate. if it were the case that the candidate of another party were clearly more libertarian than our own candidate , that special case could be(though very reservedly) made for out of party endorsement. if the non Libertarian branded candidate (in this case republican rubio) were less libertarian but strongly positioned to win, the lesser of two evils (the traditional devil)s argument , may be considered or discarded as seems appropriate to the individual. as a party(Libertarian Party) though in such case how could it be justified? would it not discourage credible candidates to have their own party officially supporting another party’s candidate?
It took you a long time to respond to my post; did you have to check with propaganda handler first? You are either very closed minded individual; blind to the facts of political agendas, or you are simply a republican agent spreading Rubio propaganda. You are not siting any facts about anything, you are writing opinions, innuendo, assumptions and lies. I see that your goal is to try and sway Libertarians to the republican flip flop agenda to keep them in office.
The fact is the carbon tax and cap and trade are not job creating energy policies. Read the facts and not some propaganda. I shall explain it for you to understand. The World Bank and International Money Fund (global banks); will regulate the amount of carbon that is created by indiviual countries. This is the carbon tax. Then those same banks put a commodity on that carbon and trade it on the stock market for profit; this is the cap & trade. So again global banks are regulating this countries carbon output; which will regulate the amount of manufacturing a country can produce. Where do these taxes go? They go overseas to the same two global banks The World Bank & International Money Fund. Plain and simple again nothing radical about it, all money goes out of the country to banks in the European Union.
Your response is completely flawed. The video clearly shows him saying he is for the cap & trade. Your comment is a whitewash and spin of the truth. He says “Florida needs to be the international leader”. You are completely wrong; and you have proved the point that Rubio at the least flip flops on his policies. He as clear as day; stated to be for the whole carbon tax / cap & trade 2 years ago. Your quotation of him is proof that he does not stick to the same policy, but flip flops when it is convienant. So, your remark about him not supporting cap & trade is flawed and incorrect. You are a lap dog trying to promote a candidate that lies on public television to cover his past mistakes so he may be reelected.
NO, it can not be argued that federal government can protect the environment. You show me where in the Constitution; it gives federal government ANY power to control or regulate or this country’s manufacturing or our lives. IT DOES NOT. The 10th ammendment says,” The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Therefore, the federal government as no authority over states rights when it comes to any issue not already mandated by the constitution. Last time I checked it has nothing about protection from carbon dioxide; which is 1 of the 4 basic elements of life. So, to say the federal government is protecting us from an element that is needed for life to exist is even more ridiculous than you reply to my remarks.
As to your response, I have not supported any candidate in my post. I have pointed out factual evidence that shows Rubio is a flip flopping politician that has spent enough time lying to Floridians as a job. It is time for someone new and who has not made his career lying to everyone; including you; to keep being reelected. As for you, before you step in to a political debate; perhaps yopu should have studied up on the facts of Rubio past. Unless you are as I stated earlier a simple political tool to promote Rubio propaganda.
I will support one now. Alex Snitker is a real person with real issues and a real plan to execute these goals. Marco Rubio is nothing but a politician who says what you want to hear but does nothing for the state of Florida. If you were a real American who cared about the real issues; you would not be blindly promoting a candidate and argueing in his defense. You would be researching other candidates and their views, or actually researching the facts behind these agendas and actually know the limitations of the federal government as stated in the COnstitution of the United States, not making remarks like inserting clauses in to the Constitution to make things Constitutional. That is why this country is in the place it’s at. People like you who want to just add clauses to make things constitutional.
Chrsitian Gadbois, You know what’s funny – if you look at all the comments and rhetoric being exchanged between Rubio supporters and Snikter supporters, only the Snitker supporters have resorted to insulting their opponent. Snikter supporters, better change that…
Anyway, It took you 18 and half hours to respond to my comment when it took me less than 12 hours to respond to yours – do I have to beat you in everything? I love how you don’t know me, yet you sum up my being by calling me a “closed minded individual; blind to the facts of political agendas”, or “I’m simply a republican agent spreading Rubio propaganda.”
Are you serious? How are you gonna come here on my blog and insult me like that? Do you want me to say your an idiot for spelling CITING wrong when you write: “You are not siting any facts about anything, you are writing opinions, innuendo, assumptions and lies. I see that your goal is to try and sway Libertarians to the republican flip flop agenda to keep them in office.”?
Basically Christian, let’s keep this civil or I’ll have to cut you from the thread.
Anyway, your first paragraph opens up a whole new topic: Job creation. I don’t know what cap/trade and job creation have to do with anything we are talking about, or anything to do with Rubio’s support of State’s Rights, but okay…
I am not going to defend Rubio against claims he supports Cap and Trade. It seems other than the video you provided, Rubio did vote for a bill that specifically declared that the Legislature wants the state to pursue market-based strategies such as cap-and-trade, but hardly Cap and Trade itself. In fact, Marco Rubio almost single-handedly prevented Charlie Crist’s rush toward implementing European-style energy mandates in Florida. In 2007, Charlie Crist signed executive orders which had the effect of law. Without action from the Legislature, Crist’s executive orders would have mandated a California-style cap-and-trade regime in Florida. Rubio and the House advanced legislation that substantially weakened Crist’s cap-and-trade scheme while laying the groundwork for Florida to pursue market-based solutions to comply with cap-and-trade in the event it is eventually signed into law at the federal level. Getting Crist to agree to this compromise was no easy task, since a Crist veto would have meant that Crist’s executive orders would have stood as law. In fact, the Miami Herald reported that “Crist’s [cap-and-trade energy policy] plans were shredded by the Republican Legislature.” (Miami Herald, 8/7/09).
Additionally, if Rubio was for Cap and Trade, the Conservatives of America Endorses Marco Rubio for U.S. Senate wouldn’t have JUST endorsed him today, April . “Saint Louis, MO (PRWEB) April 7, 2010 — Conservatives of America today officially endorsed Marco Rubio for the U.S. Senate in Florida.” In making the endorsement, Conservatives of America noted that Marco Rubio has been a solid conservative voice for Florida over the years, including in his leadership role as Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives. “Marco Rubio has not just talked the talk, he has truly walked the walk and has been a leader in fighting for conservative principles,” said Bill Murphy. In the Florida House, Rubio led the fight for a major overhaul of the Florida tax system that would have eliminated all property taxes on primary residences, and fought for gun-owner rights, as well as the rights of the Unborn. Most significantly, though, “Floridians have Marco Rubio to thank for having the guts to stand up to Charlie Crist when he tried to impose a left-wing, cap-and-trade scheme on the state of Florida,” Murphy noted. In short, Marco Rubio will not drink the “Obama Kool-Aid,” but instead will have the backbone to stand up and fight the Obama Administration’s march to Socialism in America.
For the record: The Conservatives of America is a national, grassroots conservative organization dedicated to reducing the size of government, lowering taxes, promoting fiscal sanity, protecting the Right to Life for the Unborn, preserving the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Recently, Conservatives of America has emerged as America’s leading conservative organization dedicated to training grassroots conservative activists and the conservative movement. The organization also recently launched a petition calling for the repeal of the recent healthcare reform legislation. Is that Propaganda, Mr. Gadbois? Also, cite the propaganda I was citing before please; I’d like to be mindful of citing propaganda. I mean, you also call my comments non-responsive and white washing the truth, however, while I have all these news articles and cites, you have a really cool facebook video. Which person’s evidence here seems to be everything short of trying to provide truth? I could tell you but you won’t like the answer. Further, there is no Flip Flopping with Rubio, as you say. The latest news shows Rubio has been consistent enough to not endorse Cap and Trade…enough to get some highly sought out endorsements.
Its cool also that you were non-responsive to my States’s rights argument and foreign policy arguments. Rubio I guess can stand strong on those issues.
I think we have a great discussion. There are points that we disagree on but overall this has been very productive. Sometimes we can all make comments that get a little personal.
Mr. Raof,
What ‘logic’ are you using to come to your conclusion? It seems that you’re suggesting that logic would have one vote for the candidate that has the best chance of winning, rather than that with whom we most agree. This ‘logic’ would have us voting for FDR, LBJ, et al. Clearly when we apply these examples, we see the flaw in the logic that your article is based on.
Further, I find it shocking that someone who would quote Murray Rothbard and cite Mises would support someone who wants to control people.
I’d also like to comment on the following portion of the article:
“Rubio will support a noninterventionist conservative foreign policy of peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none.”
I’d like you to provide something to back this statement up, if you would. As mentioned above, Mr. Rubio has stated that he would do ‘whatever it takes, for however long it takes, to defeat radical Islamic terrorism’. What a nebulous concept, that we would commit the country, and its tax monies to. If you don’t recognize the open door for rampant interventionism in that statement, neither I, nor your political science professors will be able to show you.
In addition, he’s supported largely by the jewish community for his pro-Israel position. So much for entangling alliances, hmm?
Presuming your crystal ball and education serve you correctly, and in the general election, Rubio wins by a landslide, then why would you be concerned at all about trying to sway libertarians in his favor, or even support him yourself. I think you were right on when you suggested that a larger than normal percentage for the (L) candidate will begin to turn some heads. This being said, let put our support where we can begin to swing future elections in our favor, rather than voting for the now (an act of futility in this election, according to you. Please correct me if I misunderstand you), and swing as many independents and those afflicted with battered-voter syndrome in the direction of liberty as we can.
-Loring
P.S. While helping the environment could be argued as constitutional, the Necessary and Proper Clause only applies to Article I, Section 8. Which of them, would you say, would authorize Cap and Trade?
I am referring to you posting multiple; which is 4 seperate posts; about “glassing over” topics to Alex before responding to mine; nothing on time of response. Lets not mention, I am writing these comments; while I am in the final process of building a 350HP 4 cylinder engine and putting it in a car it was not designed for. So your childish remark on my spelling is nonexistant to me. I have no emotional attachment and do not need to pretend to be on higher ground; then turn around and and try to seek retribution with juvenile remarks like “ha ha you can’t spell”. Why don’t you start a blog site with spell check? Then, I love you attempt at the condesending attitude. It makes me laugh.
I can come on to any public website and freely say what ever I choose. It is the 1st Amendment. A true conservative or libertarian would not even ask that question. Only a emotional beaten person who has taken offense to the truth. You are plainly and publically claiming to be Liberarian and promting Libertarians to support Rubio. Then you just spout Rubio website propaganda. How is that not? And to take so much offense at my attacks at Rubio; how can you not be a total supporter and are here specifically to promote Rubio?
To associate your idea of job creating energy plans and cap & trade agenda is completely off base. Along with your comment to add clauses in to the Constitution to make something constitutional is beyond progressive thinking. So, yes if you are supporting Rubio; then I do hold him and you in same regard as Woodrow Wilson, FDR and the others you mentioned. To add anything to the Constitution to make it fit is completely not conservative nor Libertarian. I bet you are also a “conservative” that believes we need a VAT tax or a national sales tax too?
And yes that video clearly shows the fact that he was completely for the cap in trade bill that was going through Congress before the whole climate scandel. So, yes either you are uninformed or clearly blind to the facts. The man literally says he is for the bill and that Florida needs to lead internationally. How can that not be anything other than support? Maybe in some other dimension. Or you are a Rubio supporter and are in denial.
How is that not dealing with foreign policy? A United Nations tax on countries; then becoming a federal tax on the states; then a consumption tax on the people not fall in to the catagory of foreign policy? So, in the case of the U.S., the United Nations forces a tax on the federal government and that it not foreign policy? So, that federal government then taxing the states has nothing to do with states rights? What world do you live in?
As a homeowner in the state of Florida you are so wrong. The property tax system in this state is worse now then prior. So, valueing a house from 5-7 years ago; when it has depreciated greatly in present; then taxing the home owner for the higher value from many years prior is a “good major overhaul” on the tax code? Is that why my property taxes have gone up drastically and value of my home has gone down? So, no the supposed tax overhaul you are again using to support Rubio is again wrong.
As for who is endorsing who; that has no concern on the candidate. So, the former Mayor Guliani; who denied medical care for 9/11 first responders; recently endorsed Rubio also. To think otherwise is nothing but following the bandwagon. So, again you are some propaganda agent pushing for “do it becuase everyone else is”. Which is the main tool of propagandists; along with emotional attacks, like the juvenile spelling comment. Again all the facts you have brought to this has ALL been facts from Rubio’s website. If you weren’t either uninformed or a propoaganda agent; you might have sources other than Fox news clips and Rubio’s own website.
Again, your attempt to use condesending tones, and the laughable worded intimidation has proved to me nothing else. All of your worded tactics are exact examples of propagandist tools. Thank you I am done. The facts are: that video is proof Rubio promoted and supported the exact cap/trade and carbon tax that was in Senate at the time. And that bill was going to create taxes exactly as I stated. And that bill; that Rubio clearly was supporting has everything to do with foreign policy, national sovereignty, states rights and the 10th Ammendment.
Loring Smith,
The Logic I am suggesting would have one vote for the candidate that HAS a chance of winning, rather than a candidate with no MUTUAL EXCLUSIVITY. This logic would have us voting for Rubio over Sknitker….of course in a vacuum in which everything I have said is correct lol…
Thus, because your initial understing of the logic I was referring to was wrong, the flaw you point out in the logic was misidentified…it’a all good though.
I am not trying to control people or support people trying to control people, so please don’t be shocked in my cites.
While Rubio hasn’t been in a position to really impact the country’s foreign policy, there really isn’t anything we can go off of -there is no proof for both sides – but what he is campaigning. As such, Rubio has consistently fought against government spending, including the forces that typically dominate the government’s balance sheet – intervention abroad. With Rubio’s firm commitment to controlling government spending, it is very unlikely he will vote to get involved in more entangling alliances. Additionally, Rubio has openly campaigned against intervention abroad as a whole. Rubio is saying he will defend against terrorism, and bring those that try to hurt us to Justice in the most appropriate venue, Gitmo. Further, I believe Gitmo is constitutionally justified, especially regarding Rubio’s use for it. Rubio is NOT saying anything about being on the offensive to make the world safe for democracy, nor is he saying he is looking for dragons to slay.
Mr. Rubio has stated that he would do ‘whatever it takes, for however long it takes, to defeat radical Islamic terrorism’. On face, it is a nebulous concept. We shouldn’t commit the country, and its tax monies to a 100 year war. However, you take Rubio out of context. This statement does not open the door for rampant interventionism and I don’t need polisci professors or anyone to tell me that. Of course, any candidate, will and should campaign against terrorsim…and promise to ALWAYS to protect their citizenry…and even do what it takes (of course within the confines of the Constitution/Federal Laws)…so why is this quote so disturbing to you?
You say:
“While helping the environment could be argued as constitutional, the Necessary and Proper Clause only applies to Article I, Section 8. Which of them, would you say, would authorize Cap and Trade?”
No, No, No. The N&P clause says: “The Congress shall have Power – To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Where does it say it only applies or applies only to the ENUMERATED powers of Article I section 8? Of course congress can constitutionally justify Cap and Trade through the N&P clause. I mean, heck, the government even Constitutionally justifies the questions on the freakin’ Census through the N&P clause.
Christian Gadbois,
You know how I know your stupid and probably a loser:
1. You are crying to the world I didn’t answer your comment before Alex’s.
2. You are writing these comments while you are in the final process of building a 350HP 4 cylinder engine. Typing while trying to be a mechanic doesn’t sound to safe.
3. You are putting an engine in a car it was not designed for.
4. You think my remarks are childish.
5. You think I am trying to be on higher ground.
6. It almost sounds like you think you can win an argument against me. Your minute long facebook video (that apparently serves as the one and ONLY warrant for your incorrect claims) has Rubio talking about how Florida should be modeled for its efficiency in cutting down on emissions and exploring greener technologies. Not once did Rubio mention Cap and Trade, nor did he say the government ought to get involved. If anything, he was referencing capitalism to guild market forces in favor of greener and more environmentally friendly industries.
7. You think it is cool to break decorum by insulting me and then citing the first amendment. Try citing the first amendment in your reply after I delete it.
Really, don’t reply. I am not going to read it and I will immediately delete it. You are not worth it. You already said Thank you and Your done, so peace.
Wow, there is a lot of stuff going on in this thread. I have been quite to see what happens but am surprised at the length depth of comments. Jonathan, thanks for bringing this up. I think it shows a little bit more then a single candidate in question. It probably could go across the entire spectrum of the Libertarian party and question building vs. running. You just happened to pick a race with a Libertarian candidate in it to make your point. I am not sure people see that yet. Somehow I think the point got lost, as people appear to be defending Libertarian rather then looking at what is being implied.
Christian, you can reply any time you want, I will talk with JimK and Jonathan about deletions separately. I am glad you have taken the time to respond and hope that you return to continue doing so in future articles as well. Especially if they draw controversy between yourself and whomever the author mat be. Differences of opinions are good and can lead to meaningful insight if handled properly.
Alex Snitker, I am glad you took the time to respond to some of Jonathan’s comments and the article in general. While you are running a good race, the fact that there is not much difference between your message and that of Rubio’s sort of stands out. Why should anyone vote for you if you bring nothing to the table to differentiate yourself from the others running. I think Jonathan is wrong for not backing a Libertarian candidate but he does have a point. If Rubio has all the same things as you do when speaking in terms of rhetoric, plus he has the money and endorsements, what makes you stand out as a better choice then him?
I will wait and see what happens before responding further. There are some things I think need to be said but it appears that the conversation is going to get down that track anyway. When it reaches there I will add my car to the tracks.
Demosthenes,
Fair enough, thank you. Can’t wait for more meaningful discussion.
OK – so where do I start. Man there is a lot going on here. Not sure what to make of it so I think I will first start with the article itself and see where that takes me. Then I will move into the comments.
I like the fact that such a controversial subject matter was picked. Kudos, Jonathan, for picking this one. I am sorry you picked a race that had a Libertarian running in it to make your point but let us see if that helps makes sense anyways. Overall, I think the real point is not supporting Rubio, although that happens to be this article, but whether to run/support any candidate or build the party.
Earlier I mentioned that this is really a two headed dragon. There are two basic rules of thought from the party’s perspective and you are trying to explore them both in a single article. I may have missed it but I didn’t see the “build the party” side of the argument in the article. I see plenty of “support the candidate” albeit a non-libertarian candidate.
Here is the problem. If you only kill one head of the beast, it still lives. You need to kill both heads to kill the beast. It is a long standing argument in Libertarian circles where people argue for building the party before anything else while others argue for running candidates before anything else. You actually have to do both.
If you build the party without running the candidates, what is the sense in building the party? If you run the candidate but don’t have a party what is the sense in running the candidate?
To answer the first question, there is none, you end up with Jonathan’s arguments of logic staring you in the face.
To answer the second question, there is none, you end up with Jonathan’s arguments of logic staring you in the face.
Taking Jonathan’s argument to its logical conclusion, there should be no parties and everyone run on their own merits. That would be good if it could actually happen again. I doubt we will ever get back to such a day but it is worth the dream anyway.
Of course, that aside, reality stares us in the face. We do in fact have parties. Why? We have them so people can identify with the group that must closely relate to their way of thinking. That being said, does it make any sense for people who think like “A” and have a member of their party that thinks “A” to support someone that thinks “B”? The answer is obviously NO. But it is always presented to Libertarians anyways as if Libertarians will never win.
Here Jonathan presents the same argument. What is good to see even though it is not mentioned out right, is that Jonathan and (by implication) the Rubio camp, do not think that Rubio can win without the Libertarian vote. So, the typical argument goes, since you as a party can not win you should throw your vote to the republicans so they can win and keep the democrats out of office.
That is a fallacy because if everyone who recognizes themselves as Libertarian leaning, including those republicans who say they like the Libertarian candidate but “don’t want to waste their vote” actually took the time to vote Libertarian, we would have Libertarians in office already. Of course, there is no way to prove this part of my thesis here since I didn’t take any numerical data to prove it. The point is, we should be voting our conscience not for the person with the greater chance of winning.
To Jonathan’s credit, seeing the problem as it stands, and applying the logic to any race that does NOT have a Libertarian candidate running might make some real sense. It is good to have recognized the problem to begin with for with recognition then comes the chance to fix things. So how do we fix things to make it work?
Well, we have to kill both heads. We MUST build the party and run candidates at the same time. This is nothing new in politics or in Florida. It has happened here before. Since Florida was founded up until most recently (80’s) Florida has been run by Democrats. How did they loose their strangle hold on Florida? The republicans decided it was time to move in. They ran candidates in every single race they could in every year they could.
The running of candidates began drawing out the Republican name. The drawing of the name began building the party. The building of the party began getting more of them to run. And so, the machine was put into motion and it hasn’t stopped its forward churning until last year. Now the party is splintering apart.
Libertarians can pick up on this same methodology. Build the party name, run candidates and get the snow ball effect to work for them as well……assuming……we actually stick together in numbers instead of backing other candidates when we have some of our own running.
Our biggest problem is we don’t have any spokesperson that stands on principle enough to differentiate themselves from others. As such, what does a Libertarian offer that the other candidates do not?
If the answer is nothing, then Jonathon’s point is absolutely valid.
If the answer is something then Jonathan’s argument doesn’t hold water based on conscience only winability – which is NOT what it is supposed to be about.
Therefore, we as Libertarians need to find VIABLE candidates to run. Otherwise, we are stuck for eternity electing the other party’s candidates. At which point, why bother having a Libertarian Party at all, we may as well just take over the Republican Party.
Jimk,
I feel like the theme music to Law and Order Criminal Intent should be playing in the background while others and I read your comments lol.
Anyway, spot on in noticing I didn’t provide enough content in defense of building the party. Additionally, I agree We MUST build the party and run candidates at the same time. Yet, we are still faced with, as you pointed out, a situation in which we have a viable Libertarian candidate, Snitker, without a viable political party to back him up. I agree, it is a two way street – the interdependency of the candidate and his or her party affiliation is PARAMOUNT.
I totally agree our biggest problem is we don’t have any spokesperson that stands on principle enough to differentiate themselves from others. As such, I always look to the question: What does a Libertarian offer that the other candidates do not? Here in where lies the problem with this particular election race – Snitker is not a mutually exclusive candidate. This proposition is in fact the biggest part of the ‘logic’ the article was originally presenting.
I think Snitker is a very viable candidate – if not for this election but certainly for other elections to come. I would just argue the Libertarian Party ought to get their ducks in a row to actually give it’s candidates a fighting chance before we dismiss the idea of backing other candidates. The uniqueness about this situation, the senate race, the Libertarians FOR ONCE have a choice to put their full faith and support in a candidate, Rubio, that stands so very close to a Libertarian agenda, in addition to a candidate, Rubio, that has a Party Affiliation that already has so much voter recognition the Libertarians can capitalize on.
OK – so now we move into the comments. Not sure how to tackle these either. I want to go one by one but that would be too many of them so let me see if I can go by person instead to shorten things up a bit.
Alex,
You are being defensive. No need, just show where the errors are with proof (not opinion) and let the truth speak for itself. It is your campaign; you run it the way you see fit. With the data Jonathan presented, it goes to show that Rubio is simply better prepared then you are. Of course, he is a career neo-con so it stands to reason he has more up front then you do as a first time runner. Bring what you have to the table, present it in a better format then Rubio and let the chips fall where they may.
You are NOT running against Rubio although that is what you think, or at least, that is what is coming through in your response. No, you aren’t against Rubio; you are against the people who don’t know you exist. It isn’t Rubio that is going to get you votes, it is those Libertarians, Republicans and Democrats out there that are fed up with business as usual that will get you votes. Those are the people you should be reaching, The hell with what Rubio does or doesn’t do. He is not your competition. The hearts and minds of those fed up people are. Keep it in perspective and you will do just fine.
You did say to ask Rubio a lot of questions. I must admit, I haven’t been to your site since before my vacation. Did you answer the same questions there? Are they in plain view for people to see or do they need to go hunting for the answer. Again, it is not Rubio you have to worry about but the voters. Can they see your answers where they cannot see Rubio’s?
You make a good point about election cycles and Libertarians being told to vote republican. Of course, this year, the republicans may really need our help to win…too bad. This of course goes back to the bigger picture of build the party or back a candidate discussed in my earlier comment. For this section, it’s a loosing argument and should probably addressed in a separate post so the whole thing can be hashed out as a single subject instead of mixing it here.
At some point somewhere you stated: “You may think that politics is a game but I do not. Tell the troops we have dying overseas or the people in the states that love them that they are just part of a game. Tell that to the millions of Americans in this country out of work struggling to survive that this is just a game.” Just what do you plan to do about that? Do you think its government’s responsibility to get people to work? If the government is playing a role, what are they playing? When I play I only play games, do you play at something else? If it is not a game, what would you call it?
In light of these posts and comments, Demosthenes asked a good question. Do you have a solid answer you can provide him for all here to see? If so, can we get a post on it rather then just a simple answer? Maybe send it to Jonathan and ask him to write you a supporting article.
LptBruce,
Your idea of Libertarians as individualists is well taken. However, if we do not stick together then the numbers will never come in and we will not win races. Whether we like it or not doesn’t matter. Facts are facts. We do NOT have enough people registered as Libertarians to win any single race in any county anywhere. We MUST get republicans and democrats voting for us as well if we want to win.
Any candidate we run as a party must be able to cross boundaries and appeal to both sides as well as preach to the choir. This is a unique talent that few learn. Harry Browne was great at it. Michael Cloud is good at it. If we get other candidates that are similar to them we will have a far greater chance of winning. Until then, we are stuck with middle of the road candidates that do not differentiate much from the other two groups.
Some people are diehard Libertarians who want ONLY pure Libertarians to run. I am not against running someone that is not pure so long as he carries the label. We can purify the candidate during the process and while in office if necessary.
There is no serious case for Libertarian support of Rubio. Not with a Libertarian running, especially a Libertarian that presents the same things as Rubio. If you had a serious Libertarian, then he would seriously vote for the Libertarian in the race not the republican. People should have learned this lesson with Ron Paul already but NNoooooo, they just make the same mistake over and over. Here we are again, with a presentation for making the same mistake once more. Those who don’t learn form history are doomed to repeat it.
Jonathan,
You indicate the Tea Party is a republican movement supporting Libertarian candidates. I believe that is not true. I could be wrong, but I think the Tea Party was Libertarian started and co-opted by the republicans and is now further being co-opted by the neo-cons. It was originally supposed to be Libertarians for liberty minded candidates. It has morphed over time. it is falling apart as more and more republicans are trying to get in on the deal and win people over with their rhetoric. It was supposed to be Libertarian home for those constitutionally conservative republicans that wanted out of the neo-con base.
You also seem, in a few places, to counter with why not Rubio this or that instead of Snitker this or that. For instance, you wrote “Why can’t it be: “People are looking for Constitutional Conservatives (Republican) and Marco Rubio is the only candidate that even comes close.” What’s the difference?” So in your quest based on the article, you want Libertarians to drop what they are doing and back Rubio. So I guess I can use the same question for you. Instead of Libertarians dropping out and supporting Rubio, want doesn’t Rubio drop out and put his money behind Snitker, the Libertarian candidate?
Well, the answer is quite simple, because if he did he would not win. So what is his motivation for winning compared to that of Snitker’s? If we find out the real motivation we probably have the answer. Based on history, I would wager the adage “Follow the money” probably applies here.
I don’t believe for one second that Rubio is as conservative as he shows himself to be. He is part of the insurance boondoggle and the bailout boondoggles here in Florida. If he was so conservative he would have fought tooth and nail against these instead of siding with them. I won’t get into the record of his voting for this argument. You are talking philosophically so I think I will try to keep it that way.
Fundamentally, it comes down to what is the difference between the two candidates before one can decide who they want to vote for. If you want to swing people’s vote show the differences between the candidates and which is good and which is bad. That will touch people’s emotions and stir their decision making processes.
You talk about up hill battles and other complaints from Libertarians. I have always been a proponent of action. When with the Fil-Am I was known as “Action Agad” meaning “action now”. Action speaks louder then words. Forget the complaints, what actions do we have on the table to address those complaints. I am tired of hearing problems; I want to see actionable solutions. If you have them, laid them out and let us try to get something done.
Often you speak of political capital. I seriously doubt this will happen across political lines from a main party to a minor party. Once the main party gets what it wants it is done with the minor party. There is nothing they can do for us no matter how much we do for them. The moment they do anything for us they will be seen as weak, it will be political suicide for them to do anything for us as a party. To believe otherwise is foolhardy.
You bought up the Conservatives of America in one of your comments. Why is it they never endorsed a Libertarian? Are Libertarians not conservative enough for them? Don’t know, just wondering.
LOL – you and Christian going at it? LOL – don’t get rid of his comment, they should be welcomed. We here at Libertarian Viewpoint have never run away from controversy before. No sense in doing so now. So he took a personal swipe at you. You zapped him back – you are even now – LOL – if such a concept exist – LOL – lets move on and see if we can get some conclusions instead.
Christian,
Glad you could make it here to my blog. Hope you keep returning and keep authors honest. You bring a lot of points but I am not sure any of them have any bearing on the election. Rubio is being smart in this. He is staying away from the Tea Parties on purpose. Why, because it is political suicide for him to show up until AFTER the primary. He has a lock on the party nomination as Crist has lost enough face that Rubio has now become the darling child. There is no need for him to get the Tea Party voters since the primary is only for Republicans. When he is running against someone else other then republican he will reach out to the other voters. They are his back up plan. He simply needs to keep the rhetoric going until he needs them.
As for his flip flopping, well so far, that seems to be the mode on the filed. I have not met a single politician yet that does not do this. Whether Libertarians will do so in office remains to be seen. I speculate there will be a few winners this cycle and we will what happens. It is my guess that the pickling effect will work its magic and prove that unless we have multiple Libertarians in office a single one is NOT good enough.
For whatever reason you mentioned time first, and then you defend your time? What the heck does any of that have to do with anything? You are taking this into a personal realm that is not necessary and certainly not conducive to reaching a solid answer. You seem to be at odds with Jonathan for making a proposition and then defending that proposition. I am not sure why? I actually think it’s a good thing he is defending his position. Flawed as it is doesn’t matter, the fact that he made it and is willing to defend it speak volumes of his character.
Loring,
Not sure what you don’t see. The logic of choice, based solely on the presentation is valid. Of course, the presentation itself is flawed because it only looks at one side of the argument and makes no effort to show the other side. It argues based on the similarities between the candidates and shows where on candidate falls short over the other, thus logically, if you wanted to vote for the winning team you would side with Rubio.
While I don’t agree with the presentation, the presentation and the logic are sound. Introduction of other factors, like the differences between the candidates might make a more persuasive argument, but then, in doing so, it might favor Snitker instead of Rubio.
Of course, this then brings us to the bigger picture argument doesn’t it? Build the party, run the candidate etc. All covered in an earlier comment. The trick is for the Libertarian party to WIN and in order to do that it needs to change the way it does marketing of its candidates otherwise, as Jonathan points out, they will never win.
Demosthenes,
What the heck are you waiting for – jump on in here and come get some. LOL – you are right, this was a very nice subject to hit on. It should have been posted a long time ago. I am open to hear suggestions as to how to build the party and get candidates running. I like your question to Alex. “What makes you stand out over the other candidates?” very aptly put.
Jonathan this is where we do have the problem. The Libertarian message is one that the Republicans have tried to make their own but when elected drop it and keep to business as usual.
Let me tell you the differences between the Rubio campaign and the Snitker campaign.
1. Foreign policy.
There is a big difference there. I understand you may think differently but I would bet if you asked Rubio if he supported a non-interventionist foreign policy he would say no.
2. States rights.
This is another arena that there is a difference. Not so much in talk but in the specifics.
A. The war on drugs: He will not remove the federal laws against illegal drugs and leave it up to the states.
B. Repeal of the 17th amendment: He has not mentioned any support for this.
3. Gay marriage: He has not stated that the government should be out of the marriage business all together.
4. Role of the Federal Government. While both campaigns talk about reducing the size and scope of the federal government we differ on how much. I would eliminate all unconstitutional departments (Energy, Education Ect…) I would use the Enumerated powers act to accomplish it.
These are just a few differences but they are important.
We build a party through a good spokesman. I hope to be the spokesman during the 2010 season.
Jimbo,
Once again you are a voice of reason and why I value your opinion. My defensive attitude is due to the subject of the article. It does come off as defensive. I will take your advice and apply it to the campaign. Thank you
Now to make sure to answer the questions I asked
1. What are your thoughts on the Patriot Act? Unconstitutional and should be repealed
2. Will you state right now on record that you will work to end the Federal Reserve? YES
3. Will you bring troops in non combat areas home and not allow US bases in Iraq permanently? YES
4. Will you sign the 10th Amendment pledge? ALREADY DID
This campaign will be successful and I am in it to WIN. With that being said the other goal of this campaign is to build a party so others may run in the future and have the support needed. My goals do not end in 2010.
Unless you’re using a connotation of the term I’m unfamiliar with, which is certainly possible, by definition, Snitker has just as much mutual exclusivity as Rubio. Perhaps I misunderstand you. Clarification would be appreciated, thanks.
The logic you refer to is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I think JimK hit the nail on the head when he suggested that if everyone with libertarian ideals were to actually vote Libertarian, we’d have several in office by now. There are numbers to back this up. I’ll have to locate them, and if anyone else is familiar with the poll I’m referring to, please post it.
Jonathan, you seem to be supporting Rubio, who does want to control people.
Correct, Rubio isn’t, and even in the senate won’t be in a position to single-handedly steer an interventionist foreign policy. I’m suggesting that based on what he’s said, he will support an interventionist foreign policy. You’re extrapolating his supposed fiscal conservatism to apply to his foreign policy, and I believe you’re incorrect. While I don’t have anything that absolutely suggests that he will push for interventionism, thus far, based on his words, is more likely that he will, rather than pull out troops and close down bases.
Should a politician support protecting the electorate? Sure. But at what cost? Let us take financial and freedom costs into account.
And what of the nebulous concept of terrorism? If the government were truly to protect from terrorism, it would abolish itself immediately.
Terrorism – noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
Sound familiar?
Further, I’ll assert that ‘terrorism’, as it’s pitched to the general population, is a tool that will allow government to erode the liberties of the unsuspecting. We sure welcomed the USA PATRIOT act with open arms, yes?
Much further could be said about it, but I don’t think many libertarians are believing the hype. But I digress…
I have no issue with Gitmo in itself, so long as there isn’t any torture or anyone being ‘detained indefinitely’.
“Where does it say it only applies or applies only to the ENUMERATED powers of Article I section 8?”
It doesn’t, but powers outside AI,S8 are sparse. You’re less likely to find them elsewhere, but be my guest. So, the question still stands, and allow me to rephrase and clarify:
What in the United States Constitution would authorize a law under N&P to implement a cap and trade style program?
” I mean, heck, the government even Constitutionally justifies the questions on the freakin’ Census through the N&P clause.”
Right, because they seem to think that AI, S3 allows for these questions (when in reality, you and I know that determination of population is all that is permitted).
“You know how I know your stupid and probably a loser:
…
3. You are putting an engine in a car it was not designed for.”
Easy there. I happen to enjoy my 550HP SBC S-10.
Jim, there may be no logical fallacy, and perhaps I’m not sure what I’m missing. Maybe we can break it down and either of you can identify the disconnect.
p1) Candidate A has little chance to win the election.
p2) The greater percentage that Candidate A receives will result in greater recognition for future candidates like Candidate A.
p3) I, and those reading, agree with Candidate A’s platform and issue stance.
c) I am, and you should, support Candidate B.
If everyone stopped thinking like this, Candidate A would win. Who will be the first to shift the trend to allow us to gain momentum?
Answer me this, everyone participating in this thread:
If you knew for certain that a candidate with whom you agreed, would get a certain percentage of the vote, what percentage would be the threshold that would cause you to vote for him/her?
For me, for example, it’s <1% (I would vote for the candidate I most agreed with regardless of their chance of winning). For Jonathan, it's a plurality, it seems (I'm under the impression that he would only vote for the winner, FDR, LBJ, so forth). Correct me if I'm wrong.
What I'm trying to discern is this: If Alex were to receive 10% of the vote, would you vote for him? 20%? 30? Where do you draw the line?
Loring,
Very nice come back, well thought out. I will let Jonathan answer his part. I would like to concentrate on the candidate part if I may.
In terms of logic, trying to determine who will win, when both candidates throw the same rhetoric out there, one would look at things like endorsements, funds etc. This is the way they are trained. Very few of us are smart enough to look at the candidate for matching ideologies. As such, since they are taught to win, they will see that the one with larger bank accounts and more endorsements will be the one likely to win and choose that person.
This of course is NOT what politics is all about but try teaching that to people who have done it this way for decades. It will be an up hill loosing battle. The best thing to do for getting that instilled into a person’s mind is to start educating them when they are young. Unfortunately, there again, the government has us licked, since they control all the re-education camps (oops – public schools) in the country.
To answer your question: “Who will be the first to shift the trend to allow us to gain momentum?” That person would be you in your neck of the ones, me in mine and everyone similar to us in theirs. Just keep the goal in mind since, has I said, it is an uphill battle.
Now, all that being said; the presentation in the article, like anything else that tries to use statistics, is one sided. The lopsidedness comes about because it only shows where the two candidates are ALIKE and does not show anything about where they DIFFER. Had that dissimilarity been presented, that might paint a totally different picture for the readers.
You did ask an interesting question when you posed: “Answer me this, everyone participating in this thread: If you knew for certain that a candidate with whom you agreed, would get a certain percentage of the vote, what percentage would be the threshold that would cause you to vote for him/her?“
Now I cannot answer for anyone else, but for me, the answer would be zero percent. I don’t give a crap about the rhetoric. I look for the candidate that most thinks and acts like me. In this case, that would be Alex Snitker. Had Alex not been running, I might have agreed with Jonathan and chosen Marco since no one else (thus far) in the race fits anywhere near as close.
I have and always will vote my conscience. What else is a principled person supposed to do? Regardless of what percentage Alex draws in any polls, he is Libertarian minded and therefore has my vote.
Oh – by the way – before I forget again – thnx for visiting – LOL. I am glad you stopped by to comment. You sound like a very intelligent person. Have you ever thought of being an author on a blog and writing your own articles in Libertarianism? I could use a few more good authors here.
Jonathan,
There is a lot here from Alex concerning differences between the campaigns. Since this article was about similarities, would you consider one based on differences to see where that would lead?
Loring,
If Jonathan cannot do the article because of other commitments, would you consider filling in and writing it?
Hah, no need, you are here and went right where I was headed. It is good to see a little sanity returned to the thread. Glad to have you back.
Loring,
The logic of my article is simple: Build the party or back the candidate – which one quickest gets libertarian ideals into public policy? Backing Rubio, a candidate that can capitalize on his party name and his conservatism. Further, I would argue this logic is a win-win situation for Rubio and Libertarians alike; in a world in which Libertarians backed Rubio, and Rubio endorsed us. I believe Rubio would be so grateful for his victory, and aware of how it came to to be, he would be burdened with accountability from his constituency. This accountability is transferred into what I believe is political capital garnered by the Libertarians. Libertarians can see someone fighting for their ideals.
If the second coming of Ayn Rand was running on the Democratic ticket simply because she actually wanted to win in a country consumed by the two party system, wouldn’t you still vote for her?
If Ron Paul was the 2012 presidential Republican Nominee, running against Alexander Snitker on the Libertarian ballot, wouldn’t you still vote for Paul?
To your threshold question:
The threshold would be 100%. Ideally, if I knew the candidate got 100% of the vote, I would know he/she is the perfect choice. Plurality, indeed.
This is what it is:
p1) Ideal A has a big chance of getting elected and candidate A has little chance to win the election.
p2) Ideal A is shared by Candidate A and candidate B.
p3) Candidate B has a big chance to win the election.
c) I am, and you should, support Candidate B.
Jonathan,
You are saying there is a tit-for-tat here and that Rubio would “endorse” a Libertarian? Ask him to publically endorse John Wayne Smith for Governor of Florida in the 2010 election.
If he does that I will consider what you are saying.
If he refuses, well, then, we know where we stand in his political world then wouldn’t we?
“Build the party or back the candidate – which one quickest gets libertarian ideals into public policy?”
The answer then, is obvious. If your intent is to get libertarian ideals into public policy, you won’t be supporting someone who wants to control people. Liberty is not defined as fiscal conservatism.
“in a world in which Libertarians backed Rubio, and Rubio endorsed us. I believe Rubio would be so grateful for his victory, and aware of how it came to to be, he would be burdened with accountability from his constituency.”
I think you’re being an idealist in this regard. I highly doubt that the Rubio camp would make their victory up to Alex’ dropping out and endorsing him, nor the Libertarians of the state following suit. If the politicians can’t be burdened by overwhelming majorities calling their lines to oppose a particular bill, what makes you think that the drop-in-the-bucket Libertarians are going to sway such a politician.
“Libertarians can see someone fighting for their ideals.”
Indeed, and that someone is not a statist; the object of your article.
“If Ron Paul was the 2012 presidential Republican Nominee, running against Alexander Snitker on the Libertarian ballot, wouldn’t you still vote for Paul?”
This is a HIGHLY unlikely event, as Snitker wouldn’t run against Paul, or perhaps for a short time only to drop out and then endorse him. I’m basing this on Snitker’s repeated statement that if Rubio were more libertine, he (Alex) would drop out or the race and endorse him.
As for Rand, if she were to be whom the Democrats selected, I’d consider voting for her, but party has nothing to do with it. It seems you miss that point. I’m not supporting Alex because he’s a Libertarian, I’m supporting him because Marco Rubio wants to control people.
“To your threshold question:
The threshold would be 100%. Ideally, if I knew the candidate got 100% of the vote, I would know he/she is the perfect choice. Plurality, indeed.”
The question wasn’t to discern who is the perfect candidate, the question was whom you would vote for. Saying that a candidate requires 100% of the vote in order to garner yours, is akin to saying that you don’t vote in any election where more than one candidate is running. Care to answer that one again?
“This is what it is:
p1) Ideal A has a big chance of getting elected and candidate A has little chance to win the election.
p2) Ideal A is shared by Candidate A and candidate B.
p3) Candidate B has a big chance to win the election.
c) I am, and you should, support Candidate B.”
Sorry Jonathan, premise 1 is weak and arguable, premise 2 is outright false. Again, we arrive with premise 3 and your conclusion as I stated above: You should vote for candidate B (in your example) because he’s going to win. Enter FDR, LBJ, the benevolent dictators of the world, et al…
You failed to answer my question regarding cap and trade.
@jimk; Sure, I’d be happy to write an article to that effect if Jonathan isn’t available.
“http://www.theadvocates.org/library/poll-results.html”
“http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/9/8/171614″
This wasn’t the poll I was referring to, but it shows that after 32% Centrists, 16% identify with libertarian principles, more than any other group.
Loring,
Does this surprise you? Most people would think that Libertarian is far right fringe party, but in actuality it is probably the most centrist of all parties when you look at the principles behind it. Yeah, I know, far fetched.
Let us look and see just how far fetched it is. Republicans are considered center from the right. They want you to have freedom of business but wish to control your morals. Democrats are center from the left. They want to control your business but have freedoms of morals. Either side puts them in control of something directly in the center of the political spectrum.
Libertarians, on the hand, want you to have control of your own morals and control of your own business. In other words, they want you to control the entire center as is fit for your life. The only difference is that they want YOU to be in control while the other groups want GOVERNMENT to be in control.
While they are individualist, philosophically they are dead center of the political spectrum. I find it NO SURPRISE that the survey produced this result at all. Now, if only they voted the way the identified themselves, we would be living in a much better world by now.
Loring,
Cap and Trade isn’t an issue anymore worth debating. I mean, you guys provide your cites, I provide mine, and then, this. It’s all good though, I am sure the truth is going to reveal itself shortly throughout the campaign. Rubio will have to formally endorse a position sometime.
Never said Liberty was defined as fiscal conservatism. However, in the context of Liberty and political issues at hand, fiscally conservative policy will yield the greatest transference of Liberty, hands down.
The political capital theory is one that can’t really be cited in terms of practical application, however, its something that could happen. Heck, its something, other than a Libertarian loss and mild recognition for it.
Thanks for the support,
http://politeaparty.blogspot.com/2010/04/taking-our-country-back-from-democratic.html
http://www.politicalwind.net/comments/3553332#idc-cover
http://thirdpartydaily.blogspot.com/2010/04/fl-libertarian-viewpoint-on-third.html
http://thirdpartydaily.blogspot.com/2010/04/fl-snitker-vs-rubio-for-libertarian.html
To all, visit these sites for just as captivating news found here on LibertarianViewpoint.
Way to go Jonathan, keep tooting that horn. Certainly no conceit on your part now is there – LOL. You go boi.
Is there anyone out there still for this? lol
That was wonderful information. You are doing a wonderful job communicating your message. Keep up the good work.
The biggest misconception in politics is that a Libertarian Party vote is a wasted vote. It is not, it is an investment that matures in four years and has a perpetual payoff. It is a message from the people that says we are watching much more closely now. It says promises made must be promises kept. Giving your Libertarian vote to a plastic Republican who betrays your best interest is the real wasted vote and it has a high price. The price is paid in party dignity, more job loss and the weakening of our Florida economy.
While Rubio was in the House of Representatives he eliminated our Aquifer protections, he restricted our ability to petition our government (thankfully struck down), and he passed legislation that further allowed insiders to rob city treasuries via CRAs, Vision Plans, and other speculator giveaways. In fact Rubio and his string pullers are as much to blame for Amendment 4 as the local politicians who took the inch Rubio provided and ran a mile with.
If the Libertarian voters of Florida support the party that really earned their vote rather than “giving” it to the greater of two evils, we will have multiple views in the mainstream media and the Florida debates in our future. That is Real Change.
Rubio’s actions in office prove he is only beholden to his large speculator contributors. Libertarians who fall for his silver tongue BS will only be the Charlie Browns trying to kick his Lucy foot ball. Well, not this voter! Support you party or sell out to Rubio? The choice is easy…
PS – Make a crooked politician cry, Vote YES on Amendment 4, The Florida Hometown Democracy Amendment.
Greg,
After I wrote this article based on more of a devil’s advocacy, I followed up with this one:
http://libertarianviewpoint.com/blog/?p=1704
…As this article agrees with what you are saying…at least everything except a pro A4 stance LOL