Thursday, November 23, 2006

Joe Libertarian on Loosertarians

The Joe Libertarian blog has a post from last Monday titled "Loosertarians: Michael Medved".

As to Loosertarians, he states "It is embarrassing. It hurts the party. It prevents Libertarians from being taken seriously. It must be stopped."

I agree.

Today I'm having doubts as to why I continue to associate with people who tolerate the Loosertarians desperate to destroy Libertarians' good work.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hang in there, Mark. Some of us are right there with you and working on this exact issue in other states.

Keep in mind that the major parties have kooks, too. I suspect we'll never be rid of them completely, but we can certainly do something about the ratio of them.

A poster over on the Joe Libertarian site made a good point when he said the answer is to contest the kooks in primaries. That really resonated with me.

Another thing I am doing is making a point to speak up and challenge hair-brained ideas. If people are going to put forth those ideas, they had better be prepared to defend them. I will no longer sit and quietly roll my eyes.

Ed said...

Mark,

I see no reason to post this insulting smear by some douchebag named Joe "Loosertarian" Libertarian. (Is he loose or did he make a mistake worthy of placing him with the Losertarians, Green weenies, and Constipation Party?)

The men of Shays's Rebellion could not write well but signed a very intellegent document. Likewise, the founding founders did not have a set spelling for words but their meaning is fantastic.

I don't fault Joe for listening to a mouth piece for the Republican religious right wing nut jobs, whose job it is to keep the flock of sheep from straying and/or thinking, but to attempt to use this childish name calling to put Libertarians in line is very insulting.

If U.S. Attorney General Gonzales (who is very articulate) runs for office (with big money) against someone who is underfunded and can't spell, my vote would be against Gonzales.

Medved has a clear agenda and was upset his team lost the Senate. A big government liberal converted to a big government conservative was looking for a scapegoat.

What the hell was Joe thinking?

What the hell were you thinking Mark?

Michael said...

Yep, we've got some oddballs and strange people out there. So what? The Boot on Your Neck Party does, too. Giving in to this Medved inspired talk radio nonsense is more counterproductive than any blue skinned Montanan. The recent debacle in Portland was supposedly to create a big tent and now it looks like that tent is getting smaller...not larger. We're always going to have some eccentrics so we'd better learn to live with folks who are more like us than the other guys or we better pack it in. I'd take a drag queen or blue skinned libertarian over any Republicrat or Democrat any day of the week.

Ed said...

The real question Libertarians should be asking is how over 40% of a state can vote for someone who voted for the Patriot Act, a flag burning amendment, and against stopping aid to corporations who invest overseas? see more here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Conrad_Burns.htm

We should be having hissy fits (like Medved's sissy fit) over what the Republicrazies have done.

ericdondero said...

Medved has a point. In some respects Libertarian Party members haven't been strategic enough in their choices of candidates to oppose. It's a safe bet that if a candidate is a Democrat he/she is also an Authoritarian. We ought to just stick with opposing the Democrats and the occasional RINO.

Eric at www.mainstreamlibertarian.com