Is that what Charlie Crist is calling himself these days?

I say he could easily win, the people are sick of only two options.

Can you imagine the impact if a Libertarian won major office?

I can't believe the people of FL would vote for this guy. He is such a wishy-washy pol that switches parties at the drop of a hat. The pubs figured him out and he bailed during the primary with Rubio.

I think libertarians and conservatives have a lot more in common than they think, and should work toward exploiting the one common bond............which is the US Constitution, and it's ongoing destruction.

A lot of things could be ironed out; the drug thing, for example. I think that many conservatives think that libertarians are pro-drugs, and just want to get high. I don't see it as a pro-drug stance; I see it as a stance against government intrusion in our lives.........which I agree with. But not a complete elimination of all drug laws.

It's the drug issue that grew yet actually diluted the Libertarian party, it was the need for less Govt intrusion re: drugs that drew so many libs as Darth pointed out, most Libertarians see the drug issue as a tiny issue, considering most want no part of it, but libs do, as well as the gay issue, it too has attracted a fringe element to the movement.

It's those elements of the party as well as their stance on the Military that makes most Conservatives take pause.
If the Libertarian party could define itself better, they might actually have a shot at taking more seats.

I kind of view both of the Paul's as Libertarians.  I think the view of that party is not very different than the Rep's but they are more focused on only letting our govt do what it was set up to do.  I agree that those who are into drug use probably look to that party for support but at the same time how can a conservative really support that the government is intruding on our personal choices and ruling on behavior.  I think the GOP would do much better if it took an approach that is based on the constitution and our founders beliefs and said that the federal govt should not be involved in marriage or regulating the life of an individual who really is only harming themselves. 

I know that many will say that drug use can harm the individual so society pays or they might harm someone and we need to protect against that.  Well the same issues can be made about a whole host of things that are accepted. 

I spent most of my life as a Dem until the party changed or maybe I just matured and realized that what sounds good actually is counter-intuitive.  I registered Libertarian for a while but have since changed to independent.  I support some of the ideas of the Rep party but in more than a few cases I think they want to interfere in my personal freedoms only in areas different than the Dem party.  I am all for individual choice and more importantly individual consequences for those choices.  Our society is moving toward a view that if anyone is harmed or put into a difficult situation that it is the role of govt to bail them out and to come up with regulations that make sure that they never have to face that situation again.

The reality is that life is tough and you cannot protect everyone from any discomfort that might come their way even those created by our own actions. Our politicians have come to believe that their regulations can control the actions of everyone.  For one they have no right to try and control me and for two it is impossible.  These people who committed these mass killings were not going to be deterred by any regulation.  I guess if you put all of us in our own jail cell it might work but Franklin had it right about trading freedom for security. Remember the Rep party is all for letting the govt listen in on our conversations without needing a court order.  So we have this shooting and we blame the gun, the school security, the mother,  the failings of mental health laws and probably a bunch of other things yet we do not want to admit that there are evil inhuman people on this earth.  It could be caused by how they are raised, or mental illness or events in their life just for starters.  But to assume we can regulate our way to where these people cease to exist or pose a threat is idiotic.  Guess I drank too much coffee today but I think the lib party is not some wacko fringe idea but should be a source of inspiration for the GOP.

I was a Scott fan, before he started acting like Christie.

Libertarian would be fine.

But be careful.  This guy Wyllie could split the vote with Scott, letting the worst possible thing happen in Crist.

Perot gave us Clinton, don't need to repeat this too many times.

I was a Scott fan, before he started acting like Christie.

Libertarian would be fine.

But be careful.  This guy Wyllie could split the vote with Scott, letting the worst possible thing happen in Crist.

Perot gave us Clinton, don't need to repeat this too many times.

I think the difference in this case is, he is not running as a party, just not as a Pub.
I have no issue voting for a Libertarian, especially if all the Pubs gave us is a RINO.
It's no different than if he ran as a Tea party candidate, the upside is, he's not a damned RINO.

Perot was running an entire party against the Pubs, this guy is just running individually.