Who Should Libertarians Back for U.S. President in 2012?

[Individualist]

Hello again. I know I haven't been here in awhile. I left because I was busy, not because I was upset about anything here. I probably won't get to spend much time here now, either. Anyway, I want to ask your thoughts about a political decision that really perplexes me: Who should I and other libertarians back for U.S. President in 2012?

Right now I'm not considering anyone but a Republican, because independents, challenging Democrats, and third-party candidates hardly have any chance (as if the others do...). First, of course, there are the much "purer" libertarian options of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. Then there's Jon Huntsman, who seems fiscally conservative but less hawkish of foreign policy than most Republicans. Finally, there are other Tea Partiers (counting Johnson and Paul as Tea Partiers). However, Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum are too hawkish for me. Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain might be acceptable, though.

What do you think?

[NeilUnreal]

I'm a liberal rather than a libertarian, so I didn't vote. But if I had to pick one of them, it would be Jon Huntsman. Having been a young prog rocker and keyboardist of roughly the same era as Mr. H, anyone who played keyboards in a band named "Wizard" can have my vote.

-Neil

[themuzicman]

Newt Gingrich

[Cu Mhorrigan]

None of the Above, Republicans and Tea-Partiers have Hijacked the Libertarian party, turning it from a party of Reason and Intelligence to a party of Knuckle heads.

[Individualist]

Newt Gingrich

What does Newt Gingrich have to offer the cause of libertarianism? He seems much too promoting or at least accepting of military action for me.

[Individualist]

None of the Above, Republicans and Tea-Partiers have Hijacked the Libertarian party, turning it from a party of Reason and Intelligence to a party of Knuckle heads.

None of these people is running as a Libertarian, though.

[Thersites]

None of these people is running as a Libertarian, though.

True, but the Republican Party does have the tendency to claim to represent a certain group- say, libertarians or pro-lifers- without vigorously advancing that group's agenda. That's not to say that the Democrats don't do the exact same thing for their constituent groups. They always promise to implement the agenda next term... and then they don't, and come up with all sorts of excuses and all sorts of political theater to try to motivate the party base.

That said, I don't think Ron Paul has an actual shot at the presidency, but to the extent that they can, libertarians should support him as a way of advancing the views which he is so good at articulating. I haven't paid much attention to the campaign so far- it's far too early for that- but my older brother, a political junkie, is a strong Huntsman advocate. From what little I know of Huntsman, I think he could be good.

I remember one of Biden's gaffes from a while back, about how Obama would be "tested" within the first year of his presidency. I think he was right, for the simple reason that he was a domestic politician. All of our presidents from Jefferson to John Quincy Adams had served as Secretary of State. Granted, this was only a 25-year stretch, but the point is that it is good for the president to have had foreign policy experience and, more importantly, for other countries to have had experience with the President so that they know what to expect. Huntsman, as ambassador to China, would fit that description.

[NeilUnreal]

Although he's not my political choice, Herman Cain is the man to watch on the Republican side this election cycle. He probably doesn't have enough Republican party pull yet to get the 2012 presidential nomination, but he might be the vice presidential pick. And on his current trajectory, he could easily be the Republican party presidential nominee in 2016.

-Neil

[Thersites]

Although he's not my political choice, Herman Cain is the man to watch on the Republican side this election cycle. He probably doesn't have enough Republican party pull yet to get the 2012 presidential nomination, but he might be the vice presidential pick. And on his current trajectory, he could easily be the Republican party presidential nominee in 2016.

-Neil

As far as I can tell, Herman Cain has just been parroting what he thinks will be popular. He's telling the "base" what they want to hear. I could be wrong about that, but it's the impression I get of him, and it's not a good impression.

[Darth Executor]

Herman Cain's been a hardcore conservative for a long time. He's saying what the base likes because he almost certainly believes it.

[Thersites]

Herman Cain's been a hardcore conservative for a long time. He's saying what the base likes because he almost certainly believes it.

I'm not sure whether or not that's worse.

[seanD]

Hello again. I know I haven't been here in awhile. I left because I was busy, not because I was upset about anything here. I probably won't get to spend much time here now, either. Anyway, I want to ask your thoughts about a political decision that really perplexes me: Who should I and other libertarians back for U.S. President in 2012?

Right now I'm not considering anyone but a Republican, because independents, challenging Democrats, and third-party candidates hardly have any chance (as if the others do...). First, of course, there are the much "purer" libertarian options of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. Then there's Jon Huntsman, who seems fiscally conservative but less hawkish of foreign policy than most Republicans. Finally, there are other Tea Partiers (counting Johnson and Paul as Tea Partiers). However, Sarah Palin and Rick Santorum are too hawkish for me. Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain might be acceptable, though.

What do you think?

I'll go with the person I like the least, because they're going to be the scapegoat for what's coming within the next couple of years, that is, if Obama can manage to keep the system going until 2012.

[Individualist]

I'm a liberal rather than a libertarian, so I didn't vote. But if I had to pick one of them, it would be Jon Huntsman. Having been a young prog rocker and keyboardist of roughly the same era as Mr. H, anyone who played keyboards in a band named "Wizard" can have my vote.

-Neil

I'm just asking you to vote for which one you think would be best for libertarians, even if you don't support him or her.

[Zombie]

None of the Above, Republicans and Tea-Partiers have Hijacked the Libertarian party, turning it from a party of Reason and Intelligence to a party of Knuckle heads.

it appears that way but the republicans are hardly a unified front, despite their image and the • Edited by a Moderator • lost their way and are just proxy republicans now.

Moderated By: rogue06

Let's refrain from using crude sexual slang when describing political opponents please

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

besides, i think it was R. Christopher Whalen that stated that the Libertarians wont win because they are a philosophical party, not a political one. and to win at politics, you have to play(compromise) politics.

i hope the l;ibertarians can forego trying to win any major elections and just infiltrate/permeate the big thinktanks and 'guide' republican- or even democrat's stances.

otherwise i dont vote for president cause i think its pointless, the 'lesser of 2 evils' shill is well, a shill.