Monday, September 22, 2008

Libs and "wasted votes": Scott Tibbs and my reply...

From Scott Tibbs and Hoosier Access...

First, let me say I like Eric Schansberg. If he were representing Indiana's Ninth District, he would represent us well in Congress. I agree with him on limited government, and he is pro-life. I have met him several times and he is a good person. However, I will not be voting for him in November. I will vote for Mike Sodrel.

Schansberg's run for Congress as a Libertarian is actually an impediment to implementing a libertarian legislative agenda. The votes that Schansberg drains from Sodrel will help Baron Hill in his efforts to return to Congress. That would be destructive to efforts to limit government and protect the unborn, two issues where Schansberg and Sodrel are, for the most part, in agreement. Schansberg's run for Congress is unwise and counterproductive.

Last Monday, I attended the IU College Republicans call-out meeting because Mike Sodrel would be speaking to the group. Once again, Sodrel showed that he "gets it" on individual liberty and limited government....


I like Scott too, but here are four thoughts...

1.) I agree that Mike is good at talking about “fiscal conservatism”. But as Baron illustrates on other issues (pro-life, drilling for oil), talk is not enough. The data from NTU, CFB and CAGW are clear that Mike voted like a fiscal moderate. If he had voted like a fiscal conservative– and this was not such an important issue right now– I’d be spending more time with my wife and kids (and quite happy to do so).

2.) My opposition to Planned Parenthood funding is not only counter to Mike’s voting record, but may be the reason for the Pence Amendment in 2007. Why weren’t Republicans talking about this before I brought it up in 2006?

3.) You’re assuming that I’m taking votes mostly from Mike. In 2006, the polling data indicate I got much more from Hill. Presumably because Iraq is less important (and perhaps because fiscal conservatism and the economy are more important), the polling data this time are more mixed. So, it looks like I won’t be able to help Mike out this time.

4.) Mike doesn’t seem to be running an active campaign this time– and according to the polls I’ve seen, he’s down by double-digits. If it looks like a blow out in November, then a vote for me, even by a pragmatist, will not be “wasted”. In fact, a “protest” vote for me would be far more valuable than voting for a major-party candidate who loses by 10%. In any case, I hope voters will be more principled than pragmatic.

Chris Spangle has more to say on this...

I’d like to remind all members of the Republican party that Libertarians are a different party, not a sub-group within the GOP. There are two types of Libertarians: Republicans who realized that the Republicans are no longer Conservatives, and Democrats who realized that socialism is wrong.

It’s time for Republicans to drop the incorrect line that Libertarians are just Republican votes. I am a Libertarian. I vote Libertarian. It is my vote. It isn’t a Republican vote.

And that is precisely the reason why many are leaving the parties. The average voter’s voice carries no weight with the party structure. If you espouse an idea different from the party platform, your voice is silenced, and you are labeled a traitor or a whacko. No debate or discussion is allowed within the party structure.

Neocons (Big Government Republicans) rule the Republicans with an iron fist. I’ll direct you to this post to highlight the treatment of Ron Paul. He is a Taft/Goldwater Republican. The Bush Republicans have effectively labeled him “crazy.”

Honest, thoughtful citizens lose their voice. As a result, you lose my vote.

It is my vote.