Think Freely Media presents Common Sense with Paul Jacob

If conservative Eris-wannabe and apple-thrower Ann Coulter wants to understand why those of us working for truly limited government sometimes have trouble voting GOP down the line, she might consider her beloved party’s history.

The Republican Party started out as the Big Government party, combining the abolitionist/anti-slavery cause with the “internal improvement” Whig Party remnant. That is, the party started out half right, half big government.

Further, Republican Teddy Roosevelt introduced Progressivism into national politics in a big way.

No wonder the Grand Old Party has been so bad about limiting government. It was the party that unleashed unlimited government in the first place. Institutional inertia set in. Some Republicans remain progressives at heart — though nowadays, thankfully, a tad more cautious in their progressivism.

George W. Bush’s many big-gov measures were no abberation.

Heedless of this history, Coulter called limited government folks who vote the Libertarian ticket “idiots,” ending her latest column with a dare: “If you are considering voting for the Libertarian candidate in any Senate election, please send me your name and address so I can track you down and drown you.”

Over at Reason, Ron Bailey provided Google instructions for Ann to get to his house. He’s voting for Robert Sarvis, the Libertarian candidate in Virginia.

I have trouble calling science writer Bailey an idiot for his vote preference. Sarvis is a lot better than his incumbent Republican competitor, Ed Gillespie — whom Sarvis aptly dubbed a “blank check for George W. Bush.”

Maybe Coulter should threaten to “drown” Big Gov GOPers for a change.

Or stop the death threats altogether and help find better Republican candidates.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

By: Redactor

14 Comments

  1. Iheartdagney says:

    Throwing away the good in pursuit of the perfect will gain us evil every time. At this point in time, a vote for a libertarian in a three horse race will ensure the democrat wins. Millions stayed home rather than vote for Romney who is a good man but far from perfect. If those millions who stayed home had voted for the less than perfect republican, he would have won. There’s no way to know for sure, but if Romney had been president these past 2 1/2 years, do you really think we would be having the ISIS problem to the degree we are now having? I think not. Indirectly, you could say, that MANY people DIED because of those millions who stayed home. Rough to say, I know, but people need to wake up to how important voting is.

    Voting is a privilege not many in this world have. If we don’t take advantage of this privilege, we look more like spoiled babies. If we don’t vote for the best candidate available WHO CAN WIN, we deserve the evil we get. Allowing the establishment GOP or DEM to continue to corrupt the primary process will continue to happen if people stay home, too.

    There are times to stand by your convictions. In fact, you will have a much better life and make a much better life for your family if you are a person of conviction. However, when voting for a imperfect man for an office of power in our government, you must take into account the fact that if you vote for someone who has no chance to win, you are, in effect, voting for the democrat. How does that fit in with your convictions?

    Here’s another way to put it. Voting in a so-called “corrupt” republican, who can be swayed, there is a big chance he or she can also be swayed by the sentiment of the people. NOT ONE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR OBAMACARE. The last 6 years have shown that the democrats don’t care what the people have to say and will fulfill their evil agenda to rule us no matter what we say. Do you really want to continue down this path?

  2. Sally Fritzsche says:

    Mr. Jacob, I enjoy reading your perspective. The history of the party is interesting to say the least. I am 64, a Christian, was a home schooler and always been a conservative voter, but over the recent years have been awakened, become very pro-active and put “boots on the ground” for truly conservative candidates.

    My concern, about those that feel it is their principle to vote for a libertarian candidate that may more closely align with their views (not mine) cannot win at this point and only becomes a negative vote. I would ask, are we better off if a Democrat, such as McAuliffe or Obama gets in versus a Republican at this point? Many stayed home and did not vote for Romney or Cuccinelli and is what we got better! Is it not true that in a Republic such as we were birthed to be as a nation, elections are not always about getting just what you want, but can we agree as “we the people” to come closer with one voice to our shared conservative goals with a Republican vote?

    Before sending this comment, I just read the comment above. Looks like we were thinking along the same lines. Thank you.

  3. Brian Wright says:

    Great piece, Pablo. Many of whom I call Liberty Republicans like to call RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) the statist establishment types. Fact is, the Republican Party’s origins and its development by and large is pure corporatism or fascism… with an occasional bone thrown to economic liberty, mainly.

    So liberty Republicans are truly the RINOs, they’re libertarian while the mainstream Republican overwhelming majority are statists, or in the case of Coulter, deep statist scumbellies who deserve to be drowned… or at least tarred and feathered.

    My longer article on the general subject: http://brianrwright.com/CoffeeCoasterBlog/?p=4260.

  4. Paul Jacob says:

    I’ve come to find voting to be an act of self-defense in a battle with many bad guys, many assailants. Pardon the analogy, but I can’t blame someone for shooting one assailant before another. Well, I guess we can cast that blame. Such gunfire properly used can indeed save lives (and freedoms).

    But as Iheartdagney puts it, “There are times to stand by your convictions.” When are those times? When does it make sense to deny a bad, big gov’t Republican a vote in hopes of sending a message that the GOP must field a better candidate and when is out time to take the lesser of two evils because the greater evil is too evil?

    My point here is that there is a line for most of us and that we are better off as a pro-freedom movement to stop threatening each other over that line and, instead, to concentrate on solving the very serious problem of not having a viable pro-liberty choice at the ballot box.

  5. AllenTyson says:

    I think American voters who know what Libertarian candidates stand for make up a pretty small percentage overall.

    If Libertarians are interested in having a candidate for US President who will be taken seriously by voters, you are going about it all wrong. If you are unable to get Libertarians elected in some quantity as state governors, congresspeople, or even at the local level, nobody is going to think twice about a presidential candidate.

  6. Brian Wright’s link is well worth the time. A short concise overview of the history and the terminology. Glad I read it. Thanks Brian

  7. Free Man NOT says:

    Be careful what you wish for.
    Not all libertarians are Libertarians, as VA voters found out last year. The “libertarian” running for governor was actually financed by democrat money. That’s one of the reasons we ended up with Terry McAwful.
    You just have to pay attention.

  8. Tim Lebsack says:

    The last (and final) Republican I voted for was Alan Keyes in 1996. I’ll never again waste my vote voting for big government Republicans or big government Democrats. I always vote Libertarian Party.

  9. I am so tired of this “throwing away the good in pursuit of the perfect” crap.

    The Republicans aren’t good. They aren’t even a necessary or tolerable evil.

    They occasionally campaign like Libertarians but they ALWAYS end up governing like Democrats.

    As far as Robert Sarvis is concerned, no, he is not “one of the reasons [Virginians] ended up with” McAuliffe. Exit voting clearly indicated that Sarvis got more votes from people who would have supported McAuliffe than who would have supported Cuccinelli if there hadn’t been a third option. All Sarvis did was keep McAuliffe from getting a majority “mandate.”

    The reason Republicans lost that race is because Republicans chose a piss-poor candidate. So please, knock off the whining.

  10. Jill Pyeatt says:

    The lack of ethics on the part of the Republican Party has been mind-numbing over the past few years. The cheating and rule-changing to keep Ron Paul away as the 2012 presidential candidate was disgusting. Now the desperate attempts to keep Libertarian candidates off the ballot in states such as Illinois, Ohio and New York is despicable. The GOP can (and should) continue to lose as long as they represent the worst of what a political party has to offer.

  11. Rick Adams says:

    Here’s another comical anti-third party/pro-GOP rant (without physical threats) from former NRA president-turned-Washington Times opinion editor David Keene : http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/15/keene-the-third-party-conundrum/

  12. MoreFreedom says:

    I subscribe to Daniel Mitchell’s Nixon Disinfectant Rule: When given a choice between two statists, vote for the liberal because then they get the discredit for government actions, and the RNC learns that pushing RINOs gets them nowhere. But usually I can vote for a Libertarian, and will.

    The question is not whether the Republican is better than the Democrat. Instead, it’s whether the Republican is for more, or less freedom than the status quo.

    Voting for Democrat lite, is endorsing reducing your freedom, and that’s what you’ll get. Voting otherwise, lets them know where you stand. And it encourages those who actually support freedom to run.

  13. MoreFreedom says:

    I should add, that when I say “the Republican is for” I mean how they vote, not what they say. Because I’d say that 75% of the GOP lie about what they are for. After all the GOP leadership and most of the GOP voted for more spending, yet again.

  14. […] night on Stossel, the show’s eponymous host reminded his panel that Ann Coulter wanted to drown folks who vote for Libertarian candidates in close races where the Republican victory could be hurt. […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© 2017 Common Sense with Paul Jacob, All Rights Reserved. Back to top