Libertarian wave wins big at CPAC

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 13, 2014 8:46 a.m.

    To "Lane Myer" I don't see what the problem is with opposing the legal recognition of gay marriage and wanting a small government. Explain yourself. I don't want anarchy, I just want minimal government, and I want marriage to be encouraged in a way that provides the absolutely best possible conditions for raising the next generation.

    It depends on what you want to use the marijuana for. Do you want to use is to get high, or is it for an actual medicinal purpose or industrial purpose?

    Using marijuana for recreation should be illegal. The number of accidents and accidental deaths that occur by people that are high is enough to say that we should not legalize the recreational use of marijuana.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 12, 2014 4:11 p.m.

    Red Shirt: What about wanting a smaller government and believing that the government should keep gays from marrying? Or the government should keep marijuana from becoming legal?

    Aren't those diametrically opposite views?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    March 12, 2014 2:54 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" that is what I thought. You can't justify hypocrisy. I can explain my point of view, but the fact that you can't speaks volumes about you and your philosophies.

    All I know is this, many of the modern Prophets and leaders within the LDS church have said quite clearly that Socialism is wrong. They have also been quite clear that the world is "All-or-Nothing, Black or White", which is confirmed by the scriptures. Read "Truth and Tolerance" from 2011 by Elder Oaks. He states that "We believe in absolute truth, including the existence of God and the right and wrong established by His commandments." He then proceeds to warn us on following the idea of moral relativism, which is what you believe.

    So, the next question is why do you not follow the Prophets and leaders of the church you claim membership in?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 12, 2014 1:39 p.m.

    USS Enterprise, UT

    I can't -- because you only see things in All-or-Nothing, Black or White, 2-dimensional flat0world thinking.
    And I do not.

    I see a little Capitalism, with a little Socialism as being good.
    I see a Social Justice, with a little Mercy as being good.
    I see a little work, play, family, and community service time as good.
    I see my time on an LDS Mission, U.S. Military service, and Working Father and Husband as good.

    You can only see things as one way or the other.
    No middle ground, no compromise.
    Absolutism. Totalitarianism.

    I believe God who tells us to have moderation in ALL things.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 12, 2014 11:21 a.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" that is nice, but that does not reconcile your belief that government should be as small as possible at the same time you believe that government should be intrusive and tell you how to run your life.

    Based on what you say, you can't reconcile your beliefs. You say that you are for Socialism and Communism, but it is Socialism and Communism that breed the "Plutocracies, Corporcracies and other Gadiantons who threaten America, our people, our freedoms and our environment."

    Isn't deciding who you will and will not help with your money a private issue that the government shouldn't have any say in, yet you want to use Government to come into my home and force me to give money to people that have learned how to use the welfare programs to avoid working.

    Plase explain how you reconcile Libertarian (believe that there should be little government in our lives) with Socialism or Communism (believe that there should be a lot of government intervention, the more the better)?

    Please try and actually explain that, and not just showing more how your beliefs are in conflict with eachother.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 12, 2014 10:15 a.m.

    USS Enterprise, UT
    To "airnaut" how to do you reconcile two opposing ideas.
    4:41 p.m. March 11, 2014
    Very well...

    I don't think Government or other people should be allowed in our homes or our bedrooms.
    I love and support our Constitution, and am willing to die defending it to ALL Americans – even for those I may disagree with, and particularly minorities without money or a say-so.
    I’m against Republicans and their Patriot Acts, Wars, and trampling of others rights – all in the pursuit of Money and Gain.
    I put people and our planet ahead of business, Corporations and Governments.
    I’m against the Plutocracies, Corporcracies and other Gadiantons who threaten America, our people, our freedoms and our environment.
    I whole hearted believe that the love of money is the root of ALL evil,
    I believe in establishing the Kingdom of God on the Earth.
    I believe in Liberty & Justice for all. beit - Legal, Moral, Economic, and Social.
    I believe that we are Free to either choose to live in America and get along with others, or get out.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    March 12, 2014 8:24 a.m.

    and how many CPAC "winners" have ever been elected President?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 12, 2014 8:11 a.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" well, first of all, most of what you say is a lie about me.

    First being pro-Death Penalty and Pro-War and being Pro-Life is easy. The Death penalty and War protect society as a whole, being Pro-life protects innocent life.

    I am Pro-business and pro-people, I don't shun the poor, sick, or needy, I believe in Eternal Progression and I believe in Progress (not all change is progress some is regression but sounds new because it is called something different), I am Pro family, and do my best to live up to the Law of Consecration (Consecration is not collectivist ideals), I am not materialistic.

    I am against Progressivism which seeks to force people to be good. Progressivism is just Satan's plan implemented on earth. Being Anti-Socialist is just following the words of the First presidency, President Kimball, President Benson, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, and other Prophets and church leaders.

    Ok, now it is your turn.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 11, 2014 8:37 p.m.

    USS Enterprise, UT

    Please explain how you reconcile Libertarian (believe that there should be little government in our lives) with Socialism or Communism (believe that there should be a lot of government intervention, the more the better)?
    4:41 p.m. March 11, 2014


    Right after you explain how you reconcile;

    being pro-Life,
    and pro-Death Penalty and Pro-War.

    Being pro-business,
    and anti-people.

    Being Christian,
    and shun the poor, sick and the needy.

    Believing in Eternal Progression,
    and being against Progression.

    Being Pro-Family and looking forward to the Law of Consecration,
    being Anti-Socialist and Materialistic.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 11, 2014 4:41 p.m.

    To "airnaut" how to do you reconcile two opposing ideas.

    You are like a Black Panther member who wants to join the KKK.

    Please explain how you reconcile Libertarian (believe that there should be little government in our lives) with Socialism or Communism (believe that there should be a lot of government intervention, the more the better)?

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    March 11, 2014 3:56 p.m.

    I liked the comment of one poster (2 bits?) about us truly having two minority parties rather than any majority party.

    I don't think that either party's chosen presidential candidates, for example, gets fifty percent of the vote or more. They seem to each get between thirty and forty percent of the vote. The one that gets the most percentage points in the spread between thirty and forty percent of the voters "wins" and the winner takes all. That is true also for national polls on support for political parties. Neither "popular" party is getting a majority of the people saying "Yes!" but a lot saying "Whatever!" or "Here we go again!".

    Polls show much popular consensus over many key issues, like illegal immigration and a balanced budget amendment for example. A third party that builds upon such consensus, if or when it gets off the ground, should build on those consenses and the popular repudiation of both parties.

    Many nominal Republicans are actually 'liberals' not 'libertarians'. When I say liberal I do NOT mean Democrat, I mean liberal in the Jeffersonian sense of the word, in the eighteenth century sense of liberation from tyrannical political controls.

  • freedomingood provo, Utah
    March 11, 2014 3:43 p.m.

    And that's why republicans will loose again. Libertarian-ism just doesn't have the votes.

    Libertarian-ism is for a small group of adults that want the equivalent of not having to eat their broccoli.

    They live here, but they don't want any rules or taxes. Eat your broccoli and put up your toys.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    March 11, 2014 1:50 p.m.

    2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT
    See... we are both "libertarians" and we disagree on almost everything. That's what I'm talking about.


    Would it make you "feel" any better to know that I registrured as a Republican, so I could attend the silly "closed" cacuses?

    At my roots, ideologically --
    I'm mostly Libertarian, but I do not march lock step with any one single group.
    IMHO - nor should anyone.

    I'm probably --
    50% Libertarian,
    25% Democrat,
    15% Green,
    and 10% Republican.

    With a little Capitalism, and
    a lot of Socialism/Communism stuck in there for good measure.

    I vote for the person most in-line with ME, regadless of party.
    Never the person most in-line with a Party, regadless of me.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 11, 2014 1:24 p.m.

    See... we are both "libertarians" and we disagree on almost everything. That's what I'm talking about.

    We aren't a party (like the Democrat or Republican party). We don't all vote in lock-step (like Democrats and Republicans do in Washington). Libertarianism is a philosophy... not a party... there's a difference.

    Democrats represent a partisan "party". They vote alike, they talk alike, they walk alike, they seem to have a collective-brain (no individualism allowed). Same goes for Republicans.

    When you really join one of these partisan groups (with your whole sole as many have)... you practically give up the right to have your own independent thoughts... you have to support the party dogma. It becomes your job to defend the party... even when it disagrees with your personal views.

    Libertarians aren't like that. That's why they will never be a real "political party" (like the Rs and Ds).

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 11, 2014 12:36 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" you make me laugh. The hypocrisy that you live is amazing. You claim to be Libertarian, yet you support Socialism, Progressivism, and Modern Liberalism. All that you supports is in direct contradiction to what you claim membership in.

    You should realize that the difference between Libertarian and libertian is like Communist and communist. That capitalization matters because it can signifiy membership in a group with similar ideals, or that you have tendencies towards support of the ideals. Yes that is a fine line, but it is significant. As others have mentioned the hard core Libertarian party is a mess because they have no cohesive message. What we want are libertarian minded Republicans that have a cohesive message, as was presented by many at CPAC.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    March 11, 2014 11:12 a.m.

    2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT

    Look at what we Libertarians stand for,
    and then
    Compare that to what Republicans stand for.

    It's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

    The GOP only let you in to be used as rubes to win elections,
    i.e., sit down and be quiet.
    You are, never have been, and never will be Republicans.
    Own it.

    I said - I've been Libertarian for more than 20 years,
    and unaffiliated off and on through out the last 12.

    Like so many I disagree on these boards --
    The Tea-Party has no clear understanding of Politics, Parties, the proper role of the Military or the intent of our Constitution.

    Just emotional reactionaries to the mondless 24/7 parroting of the echo chamber of AM radio college drop out radio talk show personalities.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 11, 2014 10:07 a.m.

    I know there is a website and an organization. But Libertarians aren't really a 3rd "Party".

    For one... they can't win elections (not enough numbers).

    Secondly... they aren't organizable, and party-loyal, like Democrats and Republicans. They don't vote in an organized block. They are all over the place on everything (marijuana, military, abortion, taxes, spying, foreign affairs, etc)... they are all over the place. They aren't as homogenous as a real "party".

    Organizing Libertarians is like herding cats (because they are very diverse, free thinking, and don't share common beliefs). Organizing Democrats and Republicans is like herding cattle or sheep (they will do whatever the party boss tells them). If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi tell them to vote this way... you can bet almost 100% of them are going to vote that way... Libertarians would vote the other way just to show they aren't under your control.

    Libertarians are about everybody making their own decisions... political-parties are about organizing and everybody making the SAME decisions. Libertarianism and party-politics don't fit well together. But many libertarians can hold their nose and vote with one real party or the other...

  • Opinionated Mama Deer Mountain, UT
    March 11, 2014 9:37 a.m.

    Spot on!

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    March 11, 2014 9:05 a.m.

    By these Tea-Partiers calling themselves Libertarians,
    I'm shocked to discover that the GOP has now embraced;

    Gay marriage,
    legalizing marijuana,
    open immigration,
    Church and State should be completely seperate,
    closing and withdrawing all U.S. Military forces,
    and Pro-Choice.

    Is this a matter of going so extreme and radical,
    that you end up morphing into and arriving at the extreme opposite?


    FYI 2bits, you are wrong.

    The "Libertarian Party" is not only a "real party",
    but it is America's 3rd largest political party,
    bigger than the "Green Party", "Constitution Party", and all others combined.

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    March 11, 2014 8:25 a.m.

    Clark: Actually, I liked the veiled inference in your original comment about Rand Paul...

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    March 11, 2014 7:59 a.m.

    Legalization of marijuana is his goal.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    March 11, 2014 7:42 a.m.

    "The straw poll at last week's CPAC illustrated that tea party favorites are winning, according to the National Review's Tim Cavanaugh."

    No. The straw poll illustrated that tea party favorites are winning AT THE CPAC convention. Which, by nature are the right wing of the GOP.

    Would this be a surprise to anyone?

  • Clark Griswold Cedar City, UT
    March 10, 2014 10:50 p.m.

    We in the Libertarian Party should proofread better.

    That line should be, "When asked to his face if he was a Libertarian, he replied, "No. I am a Republican."

    We regret the error, but not as much as we regret Rand Paul being identified as a Libertarian.

  • intervention slc, UT
    March 10, 2014 10:30 p.m.


    I think you missed a couple of the talking points from six years ago but you did manage to get most of them.

  • Clark Griswold Cedar City, UT
    March 10, 2014 10:05 p.m.

    Please don't call Rand Paul a liar. That is unbecoming of the Deseret News.

    He is registered to vote, and was elected to the Senate, as a Republican.

    When asked to his face if he was a Republican, he replied, "No. I am a Republican."

    So, please, be honest. Don't call him a Libertarian.

    We in the Libertarian Party believe that everyone has a right to identify themselves as they see fit. Senator Paul wishes to be known as a Republican - therefore he should be identified as a Republican.

    And frankly, we have watched his votes in the Senate, and we agree with his personal assessment. He is not a Libertarian, he is a Republican. Don't blame him on us.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 10, 2014 7:45 p.m.

    @2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT


    Libertarians are not a real party, so we have to find one we can work with.


    Libertarian Party (United States)
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Geoff Neale

    December 11, 1971; 42 years ago

    2600 Virginia Avenue NW, Suite 200
    Washington, D.C. 20037

    Libertarianism (American)
    Internal factions:
    • Anarcho-capitalism
    • Paleolibertarianism
    • Classical liberalism
    • Minarchism

    Political position
    Economic policy: Free market, Laissez-faire[4]
    Social policy: Civil libertarianism, Cultural liberalism[5]
    Foreign policy: Non-interventionism, Free trade

    International affiliation

    Gold, Yellow

    The Libertarian Party is an American national political party that reflects, represents and promotes the ideas and philosophies of libertarianism. The Libertarian Party was formed in Colorado Springs, Colorado, in the home of David F. Nolan on December 11, 1971


    42 Years,
    I've been a registured Libertarian for over 20...

    [right after I left the GOP back in 1988]

    Go get your OWN Party name, title.
    This one's already been taken.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 10, 2014 6:21 p.m.

    The information about the Libertarians found on the web,to me, describes the culture of the American Indian prior to the time of the white people. I think the fierce independence of the Indian gave a great deal freedom and self respect, but I also think that it was a stark life of difficulties and dangers. I don't think the Indian accomplished much beyond mere survival in a group effort or did much to further the elevation of human beings.

    I am proud that I might have a tiny bit of relation to the American Indian in my makeup but I prefer the life in this age. As an individual I might have lots of freedom but not too many ways to use that freedom. I have lots of dependencies but they don't take away any of my self respect and even if I get more than I give I don't feel guilty. Actually I don't keep score.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    March 10, 2014 5:17 p.m.

    Libertarians could easily side with Democrats on civil liberties issues & defense cuts.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 10, 2014 4:26 p.m.

    Another good thing about having more Libertarians in Washington would be... you wouldn't have as much of this Republican VS Democrat grid-lock (because they haven't sworn allegiance to either of them, so their votes can't be automatically counted as automatic for either party).

    Then you have a significant swing-vote you have to win (not just get one Democrat or one Republican on your side). This would result in legislation that's not just written for one side, and crammed down the minority's throat. Because there's more than one minority, and when they come together YOU are the minority. So each bill you have to put at least SOME "win" in it for the other side or go down in flames.

    That would be refreshing.

    No party bosses running Washington. Some actual legislation that had to have a win for all sides in it. Wow... wouldn't that be nice?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 10, 2014 4:21 p.m.


    Libertarians are not a real party, so we have to find one we can work with. And we share some DNA with Republicans, but almost none with Democrats. The Republican Party is the only party we have a chance of influencing, so I'm with them, because there's no way Democrats would even consider the libertarian philosophy. Too small-government for them.

    Republicans could win IF the include Libertarians. But they seem to find a way to alienate them. Guess it's just the Republican way.

    Democrats have no diversity of thought today. They are too drunk on their party-coolaid for any other ideas to have a chance of even being heard, much less changing them. So this is a good development that more and more Republicans are coming over to the dark-side where Libertarian views can be heard.

    This is a good development IF you REALLY want to end "politics as usual" in Washington.

    Establishment Democrats and Republicans have been taking turns running Washington, and I really don't see the difference when they take their turns. It's time for something completely different. Maybe some Libertarian influence would work.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    March 10, 2014 3:43 p.m.

    airnaut - Libertarians and the Tea Party are alike in one very important respect: They are both completely out of touch with reality when it comes to the issue of taxation.

    They are of the opinion, that "revenue is not the problem," which of course, is wrong.

    The lack of revenue is a huge problem.

  • jjfeinauer Buena Vista, Virginia
    March 10, 2014 3:27 p.m.

    @airnaut: It's important to remember the difference between those in the Libertarian party and politicians who have libertarian viewpoints. Libertarian (small "L") can encompass many different beliefs, and Paul's views, as well as many views prominent in the tea party, are largely thought to be libertarian. So just because they don't subscribe to all the same viewpoints as the Libertarian party, doesn't mean it's deceptive to refer to them as such.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    March 10, 2014 2:46 p.m.

    Libertarians? The guys against things like drug laws, abortion restrictions and attacks on foreign countries? That can't be the GOP I know.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    March 10, 2014 2:44 p.m.

    ‘Libertarian wave wins big at CPAC’

    The tea party and especially Sen. Rand Paul won big over the weekend during the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).


    I think this HeadLine is very VERY decpetive [or flat out wrong] --

    Libertarians are not Tea Partiers
    and visa versa.

    Unless Tea-Partiers are now supporting Gay Marriage, Legalized marijuana, and U.S. isolationism Foreign Policy.

    Perhaps the writer needs to look up and use the proper definitions.