Yeah, but if I try to make that argument on this site, that this is a two party system, and a third party CANNOT win, I get a “can too, can too, can too” from somebody who thinks all the millions with an “R” should be in lockstep over all issues, and therefore – why didn’t those fools get themselves into lockstep and ALL vote for Perot. While at the same time on this same site I read pissing and infighting back and forth over guys like Ron Paul, among members of a party that has 300,000 people as opposed to tens of millions.

Don’t rip on tens of millions of Republicans for failing to be homogenous and uniform, until you can get your own teensy and miniscule political movement together on the same page.

“Focusing on the Presidency is arguably far less effective than focusing on a wave of successes in Congress. Congress (specifically the House, if we bother with rules) writes the checks. For fiscal policy, at least, this would be a lot more bang for the buck (if you’ll excuse the expression).”

Let me know when the Libertarian party finally makes that rather obvious discovery, mmmkay? I’ve been voting since 1976. In the past 32 years, the Liberts sure have made real inroads in working to become a growing presence at the local, and then state, and then congressional level, now haven’t they. Is the Libertarian party any more relevant and any more of a political force, today – than it was 20 years ago? If so – where, exactly?

“It doesn’t matter who we vote for or what office they hold, big government advocates are the current trend. Very few go to Washington to “not do stuff”. Until and unless the zeitgeist of the American population changes to recognize that government is for protecting rights, rather than equalizing outcomes and nannyism, the public and the media will continue to support bold promises, smooth talk, and a tightening grip.”

First, the “public” and “the media” are not one and the same. The media’s vote for Obama was around 85-15%, versus the public which was 53-47%.

Aside from that, is the solution to hold out for “perfection,” and cast vote after vote for candidates who not only have zero chance of winning, but more often than not also have little chance of even swinging the outcome one way or another?

Or is it to try to make PROGRESS and try to slowly move the behemoth in the right direction? Reagan himself was far from perfect and had some Nanny State positions; he himself did not reverse the number of regulations contained in the Federal Register – he only managed to slow down the growth. Yet if came back today, I suspect that half of the people who post here would still holler for Ron Paul or Bob Barr and try to gin up enough meaningless third party votes -which would have the effect of….giving the election to the Dem Statist.

The challenge as I see it, is not to try to convince more of the 40 million (or whatever the number is) with a “R” next to their names, to jump ship and come join in with the 500,000 who like guys like Bob Barr or Ron Paul. The challenge is to reform the party to which those 40 million belong, so that it puts forth candidates who espouse more of the Libertarian ideals of smaller government and liberty.

Just my opinion.

Now I would have bet money you’d more likely be red in the face. Ah well, they’re only devalued Federal Reserve notes.

I would add a few of points.

1. Any third party is hamstrung by current election laws. In order for such a party to have a ghost of a chance to actually win, it would need a self-funded billionaire candidate (a la Perot), or some Teflon Celebrity.

2. Focusing on the Presidency is arguably far less effective than focusing on a wave of successes in Congress. Congress (specifically the House, if we bother with rules) writes the checks. For fiscal policy, at least, this would be a lot more bang for the buck (if you’ll excuse the expression).

3. It doesn’t matter who we vote for or what office they hold, big government advocates are the current trend. Very few go to Washington to “not do stuff”. Until and unless the zeitgeist of the American population changes to recognize that government is for protecting rights, rather than equalizing outcomes and nannyism, the public and the media will continue to support bold promises, smooth talk, and a tightening grip.

So who does a libertarian vote for? In my case, I wouldn’t sleep well knowing I voted for a statist. The hypocrisy would undermine any standing I’d require to assert liberty as a solution. So for now, I’m stuck with voting for “the most libertarian” candidate, rather than “the second least statist”.

My darker side shares SJames’ itch that the train wreck being orchestrated by President Obama and the Democratic Congress has some small chance of snapping Americans out of this trend. I don’t hold much hope for that kind of change.

I don’t care if we call the people who voted for Bush squishy moderates, conservatives, populous republicans, or idiots the fact remains if they would have voted for Perot instead he would have been President instead of Clinton. Bush had his chance in his first four years to sway conservatives, libertarians, independents, and others to continue to vote for him and he failed. If there is anyone to blame it is Bush himself, the republican elite who made him their candidate, and the “squishy moderates” that continue to vote for a candidate just because he has a “R” behind his name. Don’t blame the rest of us for having such a worthless candidate that so many people decided it would be better to vote for Perot because he more lined up with their values in spite of not having a “R” behind his name.

What is even worse is that the republican elite still haven’t figured it out. They continue to give us worthless candidates (Dole, Bush II, and McCain. About the only reason that they win at all is because the Democrats do such a poor job when they are in power that just about anyone can look better then keeping them in power. How else can you explain Bush II being elected. Bush I was a disaster. Why would anyone think his son would be any different, unless of course you are a “squishy moderate” or an idiot. Or maybe that is the bigger problem. The republican party is no longer generally made up of conservatives, but mainly made up of “Squishy moderates”. That is at least how they have governed in the last twenty years and the so-called conservatives just kept voting for them. This year like in 1992 many of the conservatives or whatever you want to call them finally after fifteen years or so got a clue and decided not to vote for a candidate just because he had a “R” behind his name. Unlike in 1992 there was no other candidate that most felt comfortable with so they just didn’t vote.

Answer: Yes. Trying to prevent the election of who I felt would be (and who is exceeding my wildest negative expectations) the worst president in my lifetime, ended up becoming my primary priority….After MUCH soul searching and reflection and prayer.

If I lived in a Blue state that was going to go to Obama no matter what I (and five thousand of my neighbors) would do — THEN I WOULD have either stayed home or thrown away my vote on a third party candidate, proudly draped in my “Don’t Tread on Me” Flag – Mr. Ideologically Pure – that would havd been me. Yessiree.

But being a Floridian, a virtual 50-50 state where an entire national election can be swung by 500 votes – - I concluded that my vote was too important to throw away on the “Constitution Party” candidate, or the Libertine Candidate or the guy from the Greenpeace or Greenland, whatever. (Was there a NRA rep I could have written in? Hmmmm). My conscience told me that I needed to try to prevent the election of the far left socialist, even if that meant being forced to vote for the center-left socialist and then go home and vomit afterwards.

And since I tend generally (not hard core, but lean) towards being one of those hated (by you Libertarians) “social cons,” on many issues, the Dems position on “social issues” holds little appeal and they would not be right “half” the time on those issues for me.

Back to McCain — Since seeing what is transpiring, since the election, it is probably and hopefully much better for the future of the GOP that McCain lost. My hope is that the frenetic rush to “not waste a good crisis” will cause a backlash, and a re-birth of conservatism as a movement. And the McCains and the Spectors and the Bushes, and Rockefellars, will get their asses booted back to their Martha Vineyard yachts.

So – I am sad Obama won, but yet I am also glad McCain lost. I hate that Obama is my president, but I do not want McCain as my president either.

And as I’ve said on this site until I’m blue in the face – there IS a growing rebellion getting underway with conservative republicans – as much as you like to stereotype and lump everyone with an “R” together….and also pretend and delude yourselves that the rebellion is some sort of grand Libertarian “awakening.” It ain’t. YOU guys don’t want to acknowledge it, but the conservative R’s who are rebelling against the Establishment Big Gov GOP are for the most part, also those dreaded social cons. Flag wavin, Jeebus prayin, gun clingin, Palin lovin, red state rubes. (DHS Alert!).

Conservatives who abandoned their principles supported the Republican ticket and still LOST (as Doug points out in this post, third party supporters had negligible impact on the outcome).

You say it’s better to support a party that has a chance to win that is at least right half the time than stand on principles and lose.

Half the time? If the GOP supported small government/pro liberty principles half the time, I’d reconsider supporting the GOP again. I don’t think the GOP is right even 25% of the time anymore.

At least with the Democrats, they are right about half the time (maybe more) on social issues and some actually seem interested in doing something about the prison industrial complex and reforming the criminal justice system (meanwhile, Republicans are happy to continue this insanity so they can tell voters how “tough on crime” they are).

Yes, Libertarians lost yet another election (which I’m sure came as no surprise to most Libertarians) but the Republicans lost as well, even as they compromised more and more of their principles. Republicans not only lost the election but even more tragically, their principles.

Libertarians lost the election but have not lost our principles (though, I suppose the most hard core Libertarians would disagree). I voted for Barr with a clear conscience; can you say the same about voting for McCain?

Note I never said I voted for Obama. I was one of the proud non-voters in 2008 and that was really only because Bob Barr wasn’t on the ballot in my state.

Jason,

The “smear” that Ruwart’s supporters whine about is simply someone quoting her exact words on the issue of children and sex. As the saying goes, the truth hurts.

Gee, how’s that working out for you? Great decision, there!! Brilliant!!

Stance on war? Following Bush’s plan. For awhile at least, until he ends up screwing up the military’s morale, and also puts ignorant civilians in charge of Pentagon on-the-ground strategy, which will torpedo any chance of success in the Afghanistan. EVERY Democrat president does this -they can’t help themselves.

Executive Power? Can you say 32 czars? And ya just gotta love all that promised “transparency” we’re getting. (As in, zero) LOL.

Moderation on Fiscal Issues? If quadrupuling the national debt in one year is moderation, I’d sure hate to see what reckless hyper-spending looks like! How many multi-trillions is the CBO up to in its estimates, now?

I’m sorry for my country and my children’s future that you were so naive.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Yes it indeed WAS “conservative and populous REPUBLICANS” who voted for Perot.

And…Yes THEY (those “conservative and populous republicans”) WERE…the “Perot voters,” who …..pay close attention now……HANDED the election to Clinton.

IF those “conservative and populous REPUBLICANS” (aka nowadays they are generally the Palin lovers who attend Tea Parties) and who were never going to vote for Clinton in 1000 years, had INSTEAD joined the squishy moderates with the “R” (aka, McCain supporters) and voted for Bush Senior…..Bush Senior beats Clinton.

So I’ll repeat it again for you. Perot voters comprised primarily of conservative REPUBLICANS split from their own party, and therefore split the GOP vote in half, and therefore caused the GOP candidate to get fewer votes than the Dem winner.

There is a school of thought which impacted a lot of voters and led them to hold their nose and vote for e.g., Bush Senior, McCain, etc. which was: “Do you want someone is wrong half the time, or someone who is wrong all the time?”

For you Libertarian purists, it is more important to be right than to win, and you will vote for the “right” candidate, regardless of whether he has any chance of winning. That makes sense if being right is more important than winning. And also makes sense if there is TRULY no difference in how the recession is being handled, tax policy, health care, national defense, foreign relations, between McCain and Obama. SW thinks there is no difference – zero, none. Perhaps he is right.

2) If Republicans want libertarian votes back, they have to earn them. They have done nothing since November 2008 towards that end.

3) I’ve come to the conclusion that voting and even participating in the political process is ultimately a waste of time. The focus needs to be towards resisting the state by any means necessary.

Perot voters did not hand the election to Clinton. Conservative voters and other populous republican voters did. If these voters would have voted for the most conservative candidate who had a chance to win, Perot would have been our President instead of Clinton. Instead they decided to vote for Bush I since he had a R behind his name. They certainly did not vote on conservative principles as Bush I had already left those high and dry. And then those same idiot voters voted for Bush II expecting something different. Maybe it is the other way around and the Bush I and II voters are the ignoramuses and not worth debating as they probably voted for McCain as well again expecting something different. Maybe a few finally got a clue and either didn’t vote or voted for someone without a R or a D behind their name. A hell of a lot more of them will have to get a clue or we will be stuck with the “One” or some other shitty republican candidate that acts like a democrat (ie Bush I, Dole, Bush II, McCain) for quite some time. The last time the Republicans actually had a conservative candidate was way back to Reagan and maybe you could excuse voting for Bush I the first time around but not the second.

Oh really? Candidates like BARR??? I discount it. Let’s review, shall we? Bush had an approval rating in what – the 20′s? McCain was loathed by the conservative base of the GOP which, when they do come out and vote, have given the GOP the WH in every election since 1964, with the exception of 1976 and 1996. (1992 was an anomoly; Perot voters handed Clinton that election and those who argue to the contrary are ignoramuses, and not worth debating). Millions stayed home this time; and millions of others ONLY voted for him due to Palin being on his ticket.

McCain was trumpeted by the opposition and by its cheerleaders in every (non-Fox News) media outlet as representing a continuation of the 20′s approval rating, Bush. McCain’s running mate, in spite of being the only one of the four with any executive experience, and with a stronger resume as the No. 2 on the ticket than the opposition’s No. 1 – was transformed into a Dan Quayle with a Vagina in the most breathtaking media smear campaign I have ever witnessed (and unlike almost everyone here whose political memory goes back to the 90′s – I voted for Gerald Ford over the Grinning Jackass in my first election) and was officially declared “manifestly unqualified for the job” of VICE president. (An audacious declaration, when compared to the total moron she faced as the opposing VICE presidential candidate).

The opposition was the most inexperienced, unqualified, empty bullshit rhetoric, far to the left of the mainstream (if you paid ANY attention to his PRE-candidate voting record, public pronouncements) candidate imaginable – and unappealing to anyone other than progressives, minorities and others who were enthralled by what he historically “represented”, disenchanted moderates who were convinced that “change” was really needed and McCain was going to be Bush’s third term; and the delusional who weren’t paying attention and really believed he would be a “pragmatic centrist” which he has shown he is most certainly not. (SW? Have I pegged you?)

Here we have two of the most unappealing candidates imaginable…..Republicans WERE both disaffected, and disenfranchised — in the millions.

All told…the perfect storm for a viable third party candidate. Another guy like PEROT, who actually swung the outcome of an election with a truly incredible 17 (or was it 19%) of the vote……

And yet – - Bob Barr pulls in a GRAND total of 500,000 votes. As you pointed out – 0%, and of ZERO consequence as to the outcome. And you already have 300,000 registered Libertarians as a starting base! So this means Barr pulled in a whopping 200,000 extra votes, correct?

So tell me again about Bob Barr’s great appeal and abilities to attract voters.

SW – you say:

“whoever wins the position of challenger in 2012 will be doing nothing more than blowing smoke when he/she gives pretty speeches scratching your conservative itch and in 2014/19 you’ll be singing the same tired song about how this last one wasn’t a true conservative and you got duped again.”

I didn’t feel duped after 1980. Did you? Was Reagan 80-84, no better or worse, and no different than a second term of Jimmah would have been? Of course, that sums up our current problem doesn’t it. There IS no conservative leader right NOW on the horizon. And Mitt Romney, or Mike Huckabee or whoever gets the 2012 nomination probably will just be blowing smoke. (Both of whom, I dislike. So no fear of me being duped by them).

You are right – there is indeed a lack of conservative leadership right now. BUT there is, finally and long overdue, the beginnings of a groundswell to throw the “socialists with an R” OUT of the party.

Arlen Spector leaves – and to the great surprise of both the National GOP and to the Media, the party PEOPLE shout – “GOOD RIDDANCE.” And an example I have mentioned before – Marco Rubio – he has an uphill battle against the GOP Establishment’s Golden Boy, our Gov. Charlie (“Socialist with an R”) Crist. But Crist is being threatened at least. So….hopefully that groundswell will grow and from it, some true leaders, not currently on the national radar, WILL emerge.

As for Marve – lucky for us he can’t play in 2009 anyway.

I read what she wrote and, frankly, found the characterization to be largely to true.

The larger point is this —-

(1) you have to be a deluded Kool-Aid drinker to think that someone more “pure” like Ruwart would’ve done any better in November than Barr/Root did.

(2) the value of the ability of candidates like Barr to bring disaffected Republicans in the Libertarian fold should not be discounted.

Shame on Mataconis for trying to use the smear that the Barr/Root people spread about Ruwart. It was a total distortion of what she said and only unethical scum would spread it about.