In response to:

The Libertarian Era?

Ken6226 Wrote: Nov 13, 2013 10:06 AM
A libertarian era? Let's hope not. Libertarians recently rallied around a third-party candidate in Virginia and secured the election of a Democrat. It turns out the third-party candidate was actually a plant by the Obama administration. If libertarians don't have any better sense than that, I'm not interested in them.
Ms Kelly Wrote: Nov 14, 2013 6:09 PM
And how many times have conservatives been hookwinked by RINOS? Are you in favor of Marco Rubio's Amnesty for illegal aliens?

We have a whole Republican party right now that is doing everything they can to sabotage the very conservative base that is on THEIR SIDE! How stupid can they (Republicans) be?
Paolo3 Wrote: Nov 13, 2013 10:11 AM
That story has been demolished many times. Actually, the libertarian drew more votes from Democrats, than from Republicans. Face it: the Republican Party fielded a weak candidate, then stabbed him in the back, just for good measure.
king10 - exposing leftism Wrote: Nov 13, 2013 10:47 AM
It's not demolished nor did you do so. It is, indeed true.
Ken6226 Wrote: Nov 13, 2013 11:00 AM
Face it: libertarians were stupid enough to vote for Democrat in disguise.
HornIt Wrote: Nov 13, 2013 11:14 AM
Actually, yes it is demolished. ALL the evidence shows the Libertarian drew equally from both the Rep and Dem and that without him in the race at all, the Dem still wins by the 2% he did. All you have is a comforting narrative that reinforces what you want to believe.
HornIt Wrote: Nov 13, 2013 11:17 AM
He wasn't a Democrat in disguise. That was the Republican propaganda that even Glenn Beck fell for because he didn't take the due diligence to look deeper into the facts. He was a former Republican who switched to the Libertarian because he gave up on the establishment Republicans who run the show and are little different from Democrats.
Ken6226 Wrote: Nov 13, 2013 12:37 PM
"He wasn't a Democrat in disguise."

His campaign was heavily funded by Democrats. Face it: libertarians were duped.
Dean197 Wrote: Nov 13, 2013 10:10 AM
Maybe the Republicans should have run a better candidate. Just sayin'. And the way I heard it, the LP candidate drew off more Democrat votes than Republican, and the Republican STILL couldn't win. But I guess as long as you can blame your losses on us you don't actually have to change what you're doing.
king10 - exposing leftism Wrote: Nov 13, 2013 10:47 AM
Guess a Tea Party conservative isn't good enough - you're showing your "take your ball and go home" colors. Just sayin'
Ken6226 Wrote: Nov 13, 2013 11:01 AM
Mitt Romney was too liberal, Ken Cuccinelli was too conservative. Tell us, libertarian "geniuses": what exactly DO you want?
Becca in TX Wrote: Nov 13, 2013 12:56 PM
Dean-Maybe Cuccinelli wasn't perfect was he was pretty good. If you can find a candidate that's perfect, go for it. A spotted hound dog would be better that Terry McCauliff, and if Libertarians don't understand that, then that's a problem. If you'd prefer to get McAuliff than a conservative who's less than perfect there's no reasoning with you.
Ms Kelly Wrote: Nov 14, 2013 6:11 PM
It wasn't that Cuccinelli was too conservative. As long as the GOP is fighting and sabotaging every conservative candidate, they don't stand much of a chance.

Big money and big influence pretty much runs the show.