I'm a big Stossel fan.
Stossel gets air time on Fox Business channel and an hour a week (I think) on Fox News. He worked for ABC for 30 years.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...use-it-sucked/2012/04/12/gIQAaMrKDT_blog.html
When John Stossel joined Fox Business Network and Fox News in 2009, it wasn’t because he had a job offer. “I went over and begged, ‘Please hire me. I can’t stand it anymore,’ ” said Stossel in an interview with the Heritage Foundation’s Rob Bluey.
Stossel said he left “because it sucked there.” He went on to describe a working condition where ABC “tolerated him for years” and “held their noses,” but by the end Stossel said he was looking for the closest door.
Granted, he somehow lasted 30 years at ABC, but he is surely much happier at Fox where he is a bit more than "tolerated."
As a long time actual Libertarian, I've debated with other Libertarians the strategy for the Party. For example, I question if is it better to spend what limited funds we have on getting on the ballots in 50 states only to get an optimistic 1% or 2% of the vote. I have repeatedly suggested that these funds would be better spent focused on a lesser but high profile office, like governor of California or better yet, Senator from California.
Like at ABC, Libertarian ideas tend to get buried. Yet opportunity to speak on the floor of the senate regularly is a year-round megaphone that can't easily be buried. Surely once Libertarian ideas are injected into the social debates, the party's popularity will grow.
Along came Ron Paul. He used the system against itself. He ran as a Republican so he could get elected, which he did. Prior to that, he ran for president on the LP ticket, and obviously lost. He got his megaphone and was reelected every time he ran for his House seat. As presidential candidate, he went from obscurity (1988 as Libertarian) to a household name in 2008 to a guy who had ~200 delegates at the Republican Convention, ~10% as many as Romney. His ability to raise money and generate a loyal following has moved the Libertarian Party and cause from obscurity to main stream (hey, even YOU are writing about it).
When you realize that it's a massive uphill battle to be fought, and it's going to take time, you do what you have to do. If it means using the Republican Party as a means to elected office, you do it. The Democratic Party is not an option.
As to the "conservatives" who disagree with Libertarians? LOL. Libertarians aren't "Conservatives," we don't vote for "Conservatives," we recruit "Conservatives!" (and Democrats, too).
Consider the Tea Party movement. Here's the platform:
http://www.teaparty-platform.com/
If you are so violently opposed to the Tea Party, please point out which plank of this platform you disagree with.
Of course, the platform is entirely inspired by Libertarian philosophy though not 100% of the way there. The movement itself proves that there is a significant portion of the population that is more than open to Libertarian ideas.
I want Obama to lose. But I want Romney to lose, too. I want Obama to lose more. This doesn't mean I'd vote for Romney. <-- there's a word "for" in that sentence, and I'm NOT "for" Romney.
The good news is that 6 of 8 years of republicans controlling Senate/House/Presidency has been followed by 2 years of democrats controlling all 3, and people clearly don't like either. They are realizing they need to stop picking one or the other with unfavorable results, and that's where WE (the people) get noticed.
Put another way, actual Conservatism is based upon three principles: Libertarianism, Anti-Communism, and Traditional Values. Because there is the element of Libertarianism (republicans talk about smaller government, keeping govt. off peoples' backs, economic Liberty), a Libertarian candidate can be noticed.
What we have today in the Republican Party isn't Conservatism, it's something else. There's lip service to Libertarianism, right? Govt. in the bedroom, govt. grew under their control, anti-immigrant, anti-gay, and so on.
The communist bogey man is dead. It died with the USSR. I think with that being the case, there can not be any true Conservatism anymore. However, there is a tinge of Libertarianism in anti-communism, right? ANTI-AUTHORITARIANISM.
Traditional Values has been morphed into something else entirely. Where it originally meant values passed on from generation to generation (like work ethic, blood is thicker than water, etc.), it now has some religious context to it. Yuk. Traditional Values means all men created equal (not segregation!), we keep ourselves out of wars, etc.
So these same people you say are posting hate toward Stossel and Libertarians aren't Conservatives, which is fine. They didn't agree with Ron Paul for his foreign policy (bring the troops home). Their rhetoric hasn't changed much since then.
They didn't back Romney before he was the nominee, did they? Now they so desperately want Obama to lose they'll vote for the guy?
I'm fine with letting them spew whatever.
