So he's honest .... he doesn't care for the government telling him what he can and cannot do with his body .... he works for a living .... and he has held gainful employment outside of lobbying, academia, government, law, and/or government contractors.

Sign me up.

(10-28-2014 04:35 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  That's what i don't understand JH
Why virtually no liberals, who above all should believe in the right to be who you are, would not support a party that encourages individual liberty over one who encourages conformity. The left would argue that they don't encourage conformity but that is far far from the truth... they merely encourage a different set of social norms than the right.

It is my sense that left-libertarianism is growing as more liberals become disenchanted with the Democratic Party. I think that is part of what motivates the thick v. thin libertarianism debates (of which I've paid virtually no attention, other to note that people get very passionate about their positions, so I can't really explain it).

I tend to agree with the OP. His ad campaign is..."get high with Haugh". There is nothing wrong with having legalization on your platform..but..to make it a central theme of your campaign makes you look clownish.

I agree with others here that I admire his honesty on this issue.

(10-28-2014 03:32 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  It's just unfortunate that we can't have a legitimate 3rd party in this country. That's the point of the OP. I don't believe that Libertarians are a legitimate threat because MANY of them tend to have bizarre fringe views on certain things that social conservatives will NOT tolerate. If you can't get the social conservative vote you're not getting elected, plain and simple.

Social conservatives are not the libertarians' target demographic. Libertarians would be just fine if social conservatives voted republican, tax-and-spend and deficit-and-spend big government types voted democrat, and the rest voted libertarian. Right now, you've got the no-abortions-ever 25% solid republicans, the gay-marriage-and-abortion-on-demand 25% solid democrats, and the other 50% of the electorate having to choose between tax-and-spend or deficit-and-spend, both of which they hate.

In a 3-party race where 40% wins going away, that 50% wins for you. And both democrats and republicans know that, and they know they don't want anybody messing up their franchises, so they keep plenty of barriers to entry around.

(10-28-2014 04:23 PM)jh Wrote:  If Libertarian candidates appealed to social conservatives, how would they distinguish themselves from Republicans?

The libertarians would actually be fiscally conservative... I hope they don't go the social conservative route, however.

(10-28-2014 03:14 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(10-28-2014 03:08 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Uhm.. Romney's dad was in politics all of 10 years. Governor of Michigan, Sect. of Urban Development. That does not IMO, qualify aas a career politician familiy.

He was also the Secretary of HUD (appointed position) after his failed Presidential bid.

Quote:Bob Dole would have fallen in that category, but he was basically a "throw away" candidate, given that being up against Clinton, and due to the economic boom at the time, you knew he was getting shellaced.

So he'd fall in your line of reasoning, although you could argue he's been a career politician.

I fail to see where Bob Dole fits any of my idea of someone who truly worked from scratch to build something. He is a veteran, and for that I like him, but he started in politics in 1950.

You referred to candidates that "came from a political family"... that's why I put in my note about arguing that he became a career politician.

(10-29-2014 09:36 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  You referred to candidates that "came from a political family"... that's why I put in my note about arguing that he became a career politician.

Ok, gotcha. I thought you were saying he is a guy with whom I could vote because he built something from the ground up.